By a split decision, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court ruled on December 3 that the state could not use eminent domain to take seventeen acres of property for the use of Columbia University. The panel did more than simply rule that the attempted seizure of land was unconstitutional. The majority opinion used blunt language like "idiocy" and "sophistry" to describe the arguments of the Empire State Development Corporation, a public authority created by the New York State Legislature in 1968 to promote urban renewal. Officials at Columbia University had no comment and referred questions to state officials.

The decision is another reaction of the judiciary to the increasingly aggressive, and increasingly controversial, actions of state agencies and authorities to acquire property from unwilling private property owners for use by other private entities. The argument that economic development or urban renewal by private firms or institutions justifies the taking of the property appeared after the United States Supreme Court in 2005 allowed New London, Connecticut to take property from one private owner and give it to another for economic development. Many critics of this decision noted the open-ended character of this expansion of historical eminent domain cases.

If, for example, the state may force an unwilling property owner to sell his real property to a developer, what would prevent the state from compelling a cemetery to exhume bodies — which have no living relatives to defend or even to compensate them — so that private businesses can make more lucrative use of that real property? Where, also, is the dividing line between real property and other forms of property? If an individual possessed, for example, a rare and ancient family bible, could a municipal authority compel the sale of that bible to a museum, on the grounds that the bible would attract more visitors to the museum and expand public access to the information in the bible? 

The question is not compensation: the holder of such an ancient bible might well be paid much more than the legally defined "fair market value" of the book. The question is rather whether private citizens have an absolute right to their real and, potentially, their personal property as well. 

If the state may take, after monetary compensation, real or personal property from anyone for use by other private citizens, then it is not entirely clear at what point the "life, liberty, and property" rights of free citizens end. Could the state compel, for example, certain private citizens to work for other private citizens, if a judge determined that the compensation was fair and that the work was in the public interest? The reduction of freedoms to monetary compensation seems to reduce virtually every component of American citizenship to something held by the state, with the only duty of the state to the individual being just compensation and a notional connection to the general welfare. 

The Empire State Development Authority has already expressed an intention to appeal the decision, and Warner Johnston of that authority has stated that this decision is "wrong and inconsistent with established law." The New York Court of Appeals could well reverse the panel's decision, but this lower court appellate ruling is a refreshing movement away from the line of federal and state court decisions which have reduced the privileges of citizenship to mere coupons for the collection of just compensation.

Bruce Walker is the author of two books, Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, and The Swastika Against the Cross:  The Nazi War on Christianity, as well as a forthcoming book, Poor Lenin's Almanac: Perverse Leftist Proverbs for Modern Life.  His articles appear in many online periodicals, including The New American, American Thinker, RealClearPoltics, and FrontPage.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

rprew said:

It isn't eminent domain, it's THEFT The Fifth Amendment says, "...; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fourteenth Amendment extends this to cover the States. This taking of private property for PUBLIC use is called eminent domain. Columbia University is a PRIVATE institution. If I am not mistaken, the taking of private property for PRIVATE use is called THEFT, not eminent domain, and is punishable by law. Generally, a thief must RETURN the STOLEN property to the rightful owner and pay for damages incurred. Just compensation would be the return and restoration of said property to its original condition. When someone assists another in the commission of a crime, that is called aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting is also against the law. When the person or persons assisting in the theft of private property for the private use of another party are also government officials, that should be cause for removal from office and jail time. Columbia University officials should be arrested and charged with attempted theft. Any New York State officials who worked for this end should be arrested and charged with aiding and abetting a conspiracy to commit theft, as should any member of the New York Appellate Court who voted FOR Columbia University.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 04, 2009
Votes: +5

DDW said:

	I would suggest That these filthy thieves have THIER private property seized; every single piece of it. I would also suggest a thorough and forced reading of Frederic Bastiat's "The Law". The thing is THEFT. You know, no matter how long you leave it out in the sun, you can't polish a turd.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 04, 2009
Votes: +4

Kenneth Creech said:

	... Pure theft. All is lost if men and women fail to uphold what is right and just. Thievery will receive its reward and all involved in it will share in the reward.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 04, 2009
Votes: +2

Pat Henry said:

just domain Thanks for the encouraging news. This shows again the need for lesser authorities (and not just Feds) to be standing on principles of law and Constitutional bounds. Related to absolute right to property are property taxes, which seem a whole lot similar to payments in the feudal system. Do you "own" the property? Only if you continue to pay taxes on what is "yours." (This is not to mention the conscription of property owners to forcibly aid the propagandization of children in their "district.")

report abuse vote down vote up

December 05, 2009
Votes: +1

link said:

Money The bottom line is money!!!! The university will pay pennies on the dollar to the state for the property. On the open market the property has now become valuable to an entity. Why pay top dollar to the owner when they can steal it through the government. We have has come a point in this country that you are no longer free, you don’t really own your home, The government has there hand in every thing you do. The free market system is becoming regulated by government. The government has already told corporation what to pay their CEO. Maybe you will be next!!! Don’t think so. You underestimate them.all it takes is a bill and 60 votes!!!!

report abuse vote down vote up

December 11, 2009
Votes: -1