Kelo's Defenders

From most of the commentary on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London, which affirmed the use of eminent domain for economic development, you would think that only five people in the country agreed with the decision--and they all happened to be on the Supreme Court. As the story goes, Republicans view the decision as an affront to the rights of property holders, while Democrats felt it gave undeserved privileges to big business.

What this version of the story misses is that local officials overwhelmingly support Kelo. In fact, many are terrified that Congress will write legislation to overrule the decision. I recently spoke with Don Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities. He made a number of arguments in opposition to federal restrictions on eminent domain, including:

* Eminent domain is used far less frequently than most people realize, and is especially uncommon for economic development purposes

* The Kelo decision did not create any new powers for local governments

* Restrictions on eminent domain could limit the ability of local governments to redevelop blighted areas and create good jobs

* The proper venue for any new eminent domain legislation is in the states, not Congress where a one-size-fits-all approach would be imposed.

The last line of argument represents an especially astute strategy on the part of the municipal lobby. Although 20 to 30 states will likely consider legislation to restrict eminent domain next year, state legislators I have spoken with are sympathetic to the position of local government. If the League of Cities can thwart congressional action, municipalities in many states should come out of legislatures with their eminent domain powers largely intact.

That is easier said than done, however. A congressional bill to withhold federal funds from governments that use eminent domain exclusively for economic development passed the House on a lopsided 376-38 vote.