Editorial from Mayor Joseph Maestas: The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. City of New London focused on the use of eminent domain by a governmental entity to “take ” private property for economic development. National reaction to the decision was swift and almost universally negative. At issue was the right of the City of New London, Connecticut to use eminent domain powers to condemn private property to be used in a large waterfront development project with private developers. The Court began its opinion by categorically rejecting the notion that private land could be taken from one individual for the purpose of benefiting another. The Court held that the takings in Kelo were executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan with the betterment of the entire community as its goal, economic development was an added bonus. As early as 1625, Hugo Grotius, who coined the term “eminent domain ” and whose work greatly influenced the framers of the Constitution, wrote that condemnation upon payment of just compensation is appropriate “not only in case of direct need . . . but also for the sake of public advantage. ” The key to the use of eminent domain by governmental entities can therefore be summarized as requiring two separate factors to work in tandem; just compensation and the public good. Several states have already adopted legislation to restrict the use of eminent domain by governmental entities. A bill passed in the 2006 New Mexico legislature to restrict eminent domain was vetoed by the Governor and no doubt other legislation regarding the subject will be debated during the upcoming legislative session. The bill vetoed by the Governor arguably expanded the power of eminent domain. New Mexico is currently at the forefront of the eminent domain debate. New Mexico law gives local governments the power to redevelop decaying and blighted areas using the power of eminent domain. The law strictly limits Kelo-type condemnations to cases involving the removal of blighted or slum conditions. Municipalities cannot “take ” private property from one individual to benefit another individual. The public purpose is not to further economic development, but the betterment of the local community and the improvement of the living conditions of families. Many states that are adopting legislation are using New Mexico laws as a model for their own legislative efforts to address the use of eminent domain because they recognize, as New Mexico does, the power of eminent domain is an appropriate tool to revitalize deteriorating communities. A recent task force has recommended deletion of the power of eminent domain from New Mexico’s redevelopment laws in reaction to the Kelo case. The dispute in Kelo was never about using eminent domain for economic development, but rather the use of eminent domain for public purposes. Promoting economic development and improving slum and blighted conditions are traditional and long accepted functions of government. Deleting this provision would be a great disservice to New Mexico’s local governments and their efforts to raise the living standards of our state’s citizens. The power of eminent domain should remain a vital part of New Mexico’s Metropolitan Redevelopment Act. In addition, there should be more public involvement in the redevelopment process authorized under the Act to assure all parties as to the overriding public purposes involved. Joseph Maestas, Mayor
City of Espaņola
(505) 747-6100 City Hall President
New Mexico Municipal League Resource: http://www.observer-online.com/articles/2006/12/18/editorial/letters/letter6.txt |
