Chapter 9 Conditions for exercising state eminent domain

On June 24, there was a two-minute piece of news on the radio. The day before the U.S. Supreme Court made a public opinion on the highly anticipated "Colo v. City of New London" case. (SusetteKelov.CityofNew London) issued a ruling upholding the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision on a land acquisition plan for the City of New London.Nina Tugenberg, a well-known legal commentator on public radio, pointed out that the significance of this case is that the Supreme Court has made another interpretation of the concept of "state eminent domain". 1. New London on the River Thames

The city of New London in Connecticut sits on the river, also called the Thames.Historically, it was a city that relied on military bases to survive.The U.S. Navy used to have a submarine base here, and the military base has brought vitality to the local economy. In 1996, the federal government downsized and closed the base, laying off 1,500 employees.The small town lost its economic pillar and quickly went into depression.Two years later, in 1998, unemployment in the small town was twice the state average, and the population was lost, with the number of residents falling to an almost eighty-year low of 24,000.

This small town is facing a serious crisis and is on the verge of decline.This situation has stimulated state and local officials to consider how to revive the economy and save the small town.An important part of the plan is to plan the development of the area where the former naval base is located. There used to be a private non-profit organization in the small town called NLDC, whose purpose was to assist the town's economic development.At this point they begin to resume their activities and participate in planning. In January 1998, the state government approved the issuance of US$5.35 million in bonds to fund NLDC's economic planning activities; the issuance of US$10 million in bonds to raise funds to build a state park in the area where the former naval base was withdrawn.After the announcement of the state government's plan, in February of the same year, a major pharmaceutical company announced that they were willing to invest $300 million to establish a research facility next to the state park.Local economic planners hope that the research institute, like the military base in the past, will bring job opportunities and thus activate the small town economy.

After a series of reviews, the state government approved NLDC's plan for 90 acres of land, including waterside hotels, commercial areas, state parks and the Federal Coast Guard Museum, new residential areas, and walks connecting small town residential areas to state parks Roads, piers, waterside sightseeing routes, etc., and the land reserved for office and commercial development is also planned.The city government subsequently approved the plan.This plan requires land acquisition, which is the City of New London land acquisition plan involved in this case.This land expropriation involves some private land owners, including Ms. Ke Luo, the plaintiff in this case. In 1997, Ke Luo bought his favorite waterside cottage and settled down contentedly.To her, land acquisition was like a bolt from the blue.

According to reports, most people are satisfied with the compensation payment.The neighbors moved out with compensation.For those whose land has been expropriated, even if the price is fair, they still have sacrifices: Housing and the environment are the carrier of family life. In addition to the hardware value, there are many emotional and other factors, which cannot be calculated in terms of money.One of Ke Luo's neighbors has lived here for several generations, for a whole hundred years. There are stable neighborhood relationships and community life here.As a result, the old neighbors all dispersed.

Ke Luo was unwilling to move. Although the land acquisition compensation given by the government was not low, she still put up a big sign "This house is not for sale" at the door of her house, declaring that no matter how much money she was paid, she would not move. went to court. 2. The concepts involved in this case The case went through several courts all the way, and finally came to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the process of modern urban development, land acquisition is bound to be involved.The United States has emphasized the protection of private property rights in land and houses since the colonial period in North America. The so-called "a home is a castle" and "the wind can enter, the rain can enter, and the king cannot enter."A large amount of land is privately owned. In transportation and urban development, expropriation of private land is very common.There are two types of land expropriation, one is acquisition by private developers and the other is expropriation by the public.

The public-private boundaries of urban development in the United States are relatively clear, generally government planning and private development.Real estate development is privately run, and they must first obey the government's urban planning.If the planning conditions are met, the developer will settle the original private property in the development zone.How to solve it? The law does not allow the forced transfer of interests between private individuals.No matter who the real estate agent is, the nature of commercial development is private profit.Real estate developers can purchase private property commercially, but cannot pull out nails by force.The law believes that everyone's interests are determined by themselves, and others have no right to intervene.Although the market value of a house is limited, a person's affection for a house can be priceless.It is his own business that the owner is willing to accept the offer to give up some interest, but the law has no right to force him to give up.The reason why there is no conflict between the US developer and the original land owner is because this kind of acquisition is a buying and selling relationship. According to market rules, it is about voluntary buying and selling and fair trading.If the price cannot be negotiated, the transaction will fail.As long as the developer calculates it to be cost-effective, he may pay a price higher than the current market price for the acquisition.In case someone refuses to sell regardless of the price, the developer has no right to force the acquisition.Developers can only rely on high prices to solve nail households.

Most of the private property issues developed are "privately" digested in this way. But ever since human society existed, there have been issues of public and private.A country that clearly protects private property sometimes requires the "public" to make concessions from the "private".The easiest thing to encounter is the expropriation of private housing land for the development of public utilities.Legal expropriation of public land, the law supports the transfer of interests from "private" to "public", and can be enforced.The most typical example is road construction. It cannot be blocked because of a nail household.The state can expropriate private land, and if there is a conflict between public and private, there will be a court ruling.So, under what circumstances does the court support the state's land acquisition and issue demolition orders?

This case is an urban development plan made by the government, which involves an important concept, "eminent domain".Eminent domain is a concept with a long history in the Anglo-American legal system. It refers to the power of government entities to expropriate private property, especially land, for public purposes and convert it to public use, while paying reasonable compensation.It is said that this concept originated from the term "eminens dominium" proposed by the 17th century jurist Grotius.He believes that for the benefit of the public, the state has the right to expropriate or destroy some private property; but at the same time, he believes that when the state acts in this way, it has the obligation to compensate the owner for the loss suffered by it.In the United States, state eminent domain must be restricted by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, that is, proper compensation must be made to the original owner.The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution recognizes that the state protects private property rights and that expropriation of private property without adequate compensation to the original owner is unconstitutional.Under this premise, any property that needs to be designated for public use cannot be exempted from expropriation.The U.S. Congress has the power not only to expropriate any private land, but also state land, regardless of whether the expropriation will affect the state's projects.

Just because the state protects private property rights, the concept of "state eminent domain" is a strictly limited power.This concept has two core elements in jurisprudence: "public use" and "just compensation". From the perspective of "reasonable compensation", selling a house itself has "price" and "willingness" Two ways.Even if the compensation obtained in the land acquisition is "lenient" as the "sale price", the homeowner is still making sacrifices in terms of "willingness". "Reasonable compensation" emphasizes "reasonable", which means "fair market price" in the United States.The state cannot pay more compensation for the expropriation of private land at will, because the expropriation expenses are paid by taxpayers.If the expropriated people think that the condemnation award is unreasonable, they can go to court to seek a judicial ruling, and have the right to request a jury composed of ordinary people to make a verdict.

If you have doubts about the "public" purpose of land acquisition, you can also go to court for arbitration.Ke Luo took the lawsuit to court because he had doubts about the use of the land acquisition, which included the economic development of a part of the commercial area.She questioned that this does not conform to the legal definition of "public use" in "state eminent domain". When the court judges that the two conditions of "public use" and "reasonable compensation" are met, it can issue a demolition order. 3. The key to the case The plaintiff in this case claimed that his property was "not for sale", so it did not involve whether the expropriation compensation was reasonable, but involved the concept of "public use" in the "state eminent domain right". What is special about this case is the "public use" of the land expropriated by the New London Municipal Government. The purpose is not as clear as building roads and railways. Its expropriation purpose is to "develop the urban economy." The development of new districts, including commercial districts, is just like general commercial development in form.Since the government itself does not own development companies and there is no state-run state company, municipal development projects must be entrusted to private development companies.People question whether it is a government development plan to transfer land use rights from the original owner to other private hands. The Supreme Court noted that in several courts in Connecticut, the judges disagreed on the ruling, but they all determined that there was no violation of law in this planning case.In this case, the Supreme Court is primarily reviewing: First, whether the government's requisition of specific land is indeed a reasonable and necessary urban development, and meets the requirement of "public use"; second, whether the requisitioned land is indeed a reasonable and expected development plan, that is, whether there is excessive requisition.The Supreme Court does not revisit planning details; that is a matter for lower courts.The Supreme Court decides whether the previous court's decision is unconstitutional. As a result, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the ruling of the Supreme Court of Connecticut with a 5-4 ruling, arguing that the land expropriation plan of New London meets the legal requirements of "public use", as long as it meets the requirements of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, reasonable compensation to the original owner This plan meets the standard of "national eminent domain", and it is legal for the Connecticut state government and the city government of New London to use the "national eminent domain". The decision of the Supreme Court was only one vote away, which shows that this is a highly controversial decision. The reason is that the concept of "public" in this case must be implemented with the participation of private developers.This raises the question of whether it will harm the private interests of the people and benefit large companies.The famous female justice of the Supreme Court, O'Connor, expressed her dissent and added a longer dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court's opinion. Chief Justice Lanquist and other three justices seconded and supported Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion . The New York Times published dissenting opinions from the people.Supporters believe that this ruling protects "public" land and safeguards the public's interests; opponents worry that whether the local government can use the judgment of this case in the future to abuse the "state eminent domain right" with government actions.In fact, the Supreme Court did not say that the government can expropriate land for any commercial development in the future.It is aimed at the case of New London, confirming that the government promotes the public interest of the community in the form of assisting commercial development, which can be regarded as meeting the legal requirements of "public use", so that the concept of "national eminent domain" can be used.As for making reasonable compensation, and implementing open and transparent procedures in the development process of land acquisition, bidding, contracting, etc., in line with the constraints of existing laws, these are almost self-evident requirements. The ruling in this case is just that the Supreme Court once again reiterated that the use of "state eminent domain" must be based on the principles of "public use" and "reasonable compensation". Only in this way will it not damage the state's protection of private property rights.The five-to-four ruling conveyed the Supreme Court’s caution in such cases, because a new interpretation of the scope of application of the “state eminent domain” may be a very dangerous thing.The difference of one vote shows that the justices are aware that the abuse of the "state eminent domain" will infringe on private property and destroy the state-based property system. This is another detailed definition of public and private by the judicial system. What is "public" does not depend solely on government officials. 4. The ability of a sound social system Ensuring proper enforcement of the law Land acquisition seldom causes social turmoil. First, there is a clear legal distinction between public and private; second, there is a transparent and due process; and third, there is an independent and impartial arbitration institution. Under such a premise, as long as the land acquisition is legal and the law supports the government to enforce the law, it is meaningless to be a land acquisition nail.The key is to win "reasonable compensation". From the case of "Corot vs. City of New London", we can see that both the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and the "national eminent domain" are just simple principles, but they must face ever-changing and complex situations.Laws on paper are easy to be perfect, but the links in the implementation process may be riddled with problems.Therefore, for every project that is declared to be "public", there must be a series of review procedures to announce the details of the plan to the public: accepting public doubts before the project is approved, review by independent review departments, strict bidding for projects involving private contracting, etc.At the same time, it is also necessary to accept investigations by the people and the media to comprehensively confirm whether there is false publicity for personal gain, and whether there is any private transfer of interests.In the case of disputes like the Corot case, there must be an independent judiciary to review, explain and define specific items and "commons".Every project, as long as there is any doubt, has the right to seek judicial arbitration.Protecting private property does not mean that society absolutely does not require private individuals to make reasonable sacrifices for society.The key is to expropriate private property in the name of "public use". In order to exercise the "state expropriation power" reasonably in the implementation, it must ultimately rely on the sound and complex operation of the overall social system, including some parts that seem to have nothing to do with land expropriation. For example, the soundness of news supervision, the development of civil society and so on.Only when every step of the division between public and private is transparent and has social credibility, can society have the right to require individuals to make reasonable sacrifices with compensation.At this time, there may still be individuals who are dissatisfied, but the society will not accumulate large-scale resentment.