HERE'S WHAT READERS ARE SAYING:

My name is Barbara from Middleton, WI. My newspaper is the Wisconsin State Journal.

The entire idea that changes for the " betterment" of the entire community are always tempting in theory. Who doesn't want to replace blighted areas with beautiful homes that generate taxes. The way the Federal government has been spending money, the states and communities are now strapped for funds. What a perfect solution. Take from the poor, who usually are defenseless to protect their properties, and give to the wealthy, who own the companies that want to expand (on cheap land) and house their executives close by. Maybe the poor and needy will just disappear when they have no place to live and become another community's problem. This is the solution our nation has chosen for centuries, take from the Native Americans-take from the Spanish-Mexicans in our southern states.
Obviously I believe this is a shameful practice and actually illegal to take/condemn land from a private party and give to another wealthier private party. Where have our ethics gone if we don't question this practice? We are pandering to the haves and punishing the have nots. For a nation who prides its self on a high moral standards and practices, what are we doing? This is deplorable and unexcusable. If the developers want the property, do it the old fashion way...offer an acceptable price on the properties in question and legally buy the land. Don't hide behind mother government's skirts.

I first want to point out an error in your column. The column stated that the
case was about Connecticut wanting to exercise its eminent domain power over a
blighted neighborhood. This is not the fact pattern in this case. Rather, the
neighborhood was a normal middle-class neighborhood. The ethical, and legal,
issues change depending on this categorization.

The Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that using eminent domain over blighted
areas was fine - there would be no issue for the Court to review if the
neighborhood was blighted. The issue, and reason the Supreme Court granted
cert, is whether or not the government can use eminent domain when it thinks
there is a "better" use for the land. The Supreme Court said long ago that the
purpose of eminent domain was not to allow the state to take land from one
person to give it to another. This is exactly what Connecticut is doing. They
prefer to see higher-taxed uses of the land, so they condemn perfectly fine
neighborhoods, and turn around and sell or lease the land to developers. (In
this case, Connecticut has offered to lease some of the land to the developers
for $1 a year.) Eminent domain was designed so the government could use land
for the common good of all - through the building of roads, maintenance of
navigable waters, building of transportation corridors such as the railways,
etc. NOT so the government could say, "I can think of a better use for your
land."

If the City of New London wins, eminent domain will have practically no limits.
All sorts of land is being used in ways that are perhaps not the most
economically efficient. Environmental groups that buy up forest and other
wilderness lands to preserve them in their natural state would have to fear the
government deciding that leasing the land to a logging company, or building a
resort would be more economically efficient, and in the "public welfare"
because it might help the economy. Historical groups that are busy buying up
Civil War battlegrounds could be forced to sell the land to the government, who
would in turn sell it to a suburban-developer - all because urban sprawl is more
economically efficient than preserving history.

We all take the risk every time we buy land that the government may force us to
sell it to them someday so that it can widen a road, or put in a new canal,
etc. Most of us can be relatively sure that this is unlikely to happen to us.
If, however, the government can exercise eminent domain anytime it can think of
a more profitable use for the land, everyone will have to fear that a developer
will convince the government that they can build more expensive homes, or bigger
office buildings, or a bigger wal-mart in our neighborhoods.

Thank you,
Jennifer

Austin, Texas

I read, with great interest, your article in the February 28, 2005 edition of The Orange County Register regarding whether New London, Connecticut has the right to use eminent domain to seize residential property for the greater good of the community.  The article states that, “New London wants to take her (Susette Kelo’s) property along with dozens of others to attract new investment to a blighted area, including the development of upper-scale residences near where Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company, has built its research headquarters.”

I find this concept to be absolutely abhorrent, and an abuse of the concept of eminent domain. In Southern California, where I live, this has been a hotly debated issue, with cities wanting to use eminent domain to remove houses for various retail establishments, including a Costco, because the sales tax revenue is far greater than that of property taxes. The fact remains that eminent domain is intended for the greater good of the community – to build schools, new roads, widen freeways, etc. – not to fatten the city’s coffers.

Homeowners should absolutely have the right to keep their homes. If the community is trying to please local businesses, including Pfizer, perhaps it ought to consider offering low-interest or zero-interest loans to the existing homeowners to make property improvements, or spend public funds to otherwise beautify the area. In my opinion, if the businesses didn’t like the “look” of the area, or the community did not offer enough “tonier private property,” they should have considered those factors when deciding where to locate their businesses.

Cheryl Iseri
Brea, CA

It is not "appropriate to take private property to develop tonier private property." Not only is not "appropriate", it's wrong. When a government of any size (community, state, federal) is allowed to take a person's privately owned home so that a wealthier person/corporation may live or work there, something akin to a police state is the result. Currently, a private owner must be compensated (however poorly) for the seizure of his/her  property to develop right of way for the entire public good; however, the interpretation of public good has overcome the right of the individual to the property he has bought and paid for through time. Public good has gone from the original intent of providing access from town to town via rail or road to providing more shopping centers or highrises. This is happening now. I've never been comfortable with the entire concept of eminent domain, but my hackles fairly leap up over this attempt to displace an individual home owner for the benefit of another home/business owner. This makes everyone who owns a home a temporary resident subject to the whims of the wealthy and/or politically powerful.

Sharon Greenwood
Placentia, CA
Orange County Register

Roy Barnes
Yorba Linda CA

Orange County Register.

No, Why should the city be able to take your private property and give it to someone else to build another private not public enterprise. Look up what is happening here in Yorba Linda Ca.

There is no way I feel that taking a person's private property to hand over to another private corporation or individual is the right thing. Implied economic gain or blight are the reasons a government agency gives when using eminent domain in these situations, despite the obvious "unblight" of an area or the sheer stupidity of being able to forecast the economics of a project. Additionally, if any public money is used to acquire properties that are then turned over to a private developer, the problem is compounded. Financial risk should be borne by the private sector as the economy dictates. Private property is private; that is why America began. Taking private property for a public use, such as a road, is an entirely different situation and just compensation must enter the picture. If Kelo loses, every property owner in the country is at risk and subject to the whims of government agencies who think they have a better use or plan for the property. So much for freedom.
Pat Nelson
Yorba Linda, CA
Orange County Register

Sandy Bickel, Huntington Beach, CA, Orange County Register,
Sunday's newspaper had an excellent commentary on the loss of freedom, called the House of Cards.
I have read the article several times. I have been following the case for some time and I can't improve on this article addressing the issue of Private Property rights.
It is an excellent article. I would like you to read it and see if you feel as Steven Greenhut and I do.
Thank you for your articles, I look forward to reading them each Sunday.

Dear Jeffrey,
As a Plans Analyst/Fire Inspector for a small City here in Orange
County, CA, I see the need for eminent domain. Sadly, some of the
depressed areas in a City are due to outside influences, IE: investors
and absent landlords, bad economic times for the property owners, etc.,
but sadly, most people in some of these areas don't provide the most
basic and necessary maintenance on their property. It can cause major
blight, and usually, the area attracts a criminal element, which can
cause further decline. It takes it's tole on the whole community, who
have to pay more taxes for more police and fire services, who spend a
signifigant amount of their time in these areas. These services in
areas like this are usually not paid for by the people who would use
them most. Also, business do not want to operate in these communities
because of the high crime, which also causes a downward economic spiral,
because the community loses out on the taxes that come into it to pay
for the services for them. A classic example is the downtown area of Los
Angeles, which has made a major turnaround from gang-ridden slums and an
economic downturn to building the Staples Center and new high rise
condos and office buildings.
A lot of Cities usually try to internally promote the upturn of these
areas by offering low/no interest loans for the homeowners to do the
necessary repairs and maintenance, but sometimes the community isn't
interested (again, if it has a high landlord/renter population, they
don't always see the need). The Cities in turn will try a strong
enforcement stance, which incurs a lot of complaints. If the City has
limited resources for dealing with these issues, and there are a lot
more economically viable options available to the City, then they
usually take that second option, eminent domain.
I understand Ms. Kelo's plight, and she may be one of the few who has
maintained her home. However, most Cities cannot afford NOT to take
eminent domain. It would mean their demise.
Sincerely,
Susan Waidelich

The idea that a city or town can appropriate the home of a citizen for a
development benefiting primarily richer persons is REPULSIVE. I saw on
TV a particular Midwestern town where a whole middle class neighborhood
was to be demolished to build condos for the "upscale" rich people.
Several of the homeowners wanted to stay and in that case should be
allowed to do so. It is possible that such developments could benefit a
location but there should be a solution acceptable to everyone; other
than going to court every time.
I suggest that municipalities start planning so that there can be a
10-15-20 year advance notice to such possible neighborhoods. Presumably
some sort of zoning law would alert people to the possibility of the
neighborhood being demolished at some point in the future. At the very
least there should be an election of municipal officials between the time
such an appropriation is proposed and the time it is approved. In the
case of the town I saw on TV that would solve the problem because the
current Mayor and Town Council would be thrown out and the middle class
neighborhood saved. As it is the mayor and council will retire before
the next election with whatever gains the developers offered them.

Bryan Gresham
Henrico County
Richmond Times-Dispatch

There is no way I feel that taking a person's private property to hand over to another private corporation or individual is the right thing. Implied economic gain or blight are the reasons a government agency gives when using eminent domain in these situations, despite the obvious "unblight" of an area or the sheer stupidity of being able to forecast the economics of a project. Additionally, if any public money is used to acquire properties that are then turned over to a private developer, the problem is compounded. Financial risk should be borne by the private sector as the economy dictates. Private property is private; that is why America began. Taking private property for a public use, such as a road, is an entirely different situation and just compensation must enter the picture. If Kelo loses, every property owner in the country is at risk and subject to the whims of government agencies who think they have a better use or plan for the property. So much for freedom.
Pat Nelson
Yorba Linda, CA
Orange County Register

The case of Susette Kelo is a nightmare about to happen. She is not the first nor the last to have her property 'stolen' LEGALLY! Your question was "Is it legal?" Unfortunately, our court system, including the Supreme Court, has made unjust, immoral, shamelful actions legal to the point that our American way of life is seriously threatened. Thus, almost anything that the power that are currently calling the shots want to be, can and will be 'legal'. Is the seizure of Ms Kelo's property right -- hell no. Can it be stopped -- hell no.

Eminent domain and Redevelopment Agencies are two of the most abused concepts by local politicos to engineer 'legal' robberies to increase the tax take of their domain. As a developer I must select a parcel of land/property that I believe can be razed and then refurbished to produce a more productive environment. In other words -- I got an idea that will make me money. First I must convince the current owners that they should sell -- all of them. The prices for their properties will be negotiated between them and me/my company. Further I must convince all of the current owners in the parcel I desire. But this is the easy part.

Next (preliminary plans were of course given to the right people first) I must convince the local politicos that I have a great idea, that it wll increase their tax intake, that it wll improve the area's image, that it will be environmentaly friendly, and that I have the finances to accomplishe the proposed task. Of course up front I wll spend a rather large sum of money in drawing plans, archectural rendings, school impact reports, utility plans etc., etc., ect.. If all goes well I should be able to complete the project in about five years.

If I'm part of the local politico the task is much easier. Our first step is to wine and dine a 'big box store' or a series of big box stores such as auto dealerships. After "we" have decided on a target location we will 'legally'  inform the current owners that we want their property because we have a better use for it than they do -- it's for the greater common good. AND, there are no exceptions. Magically, we, the politicos and the local courts decide what the properties are worth and shove the price down their throats. Oh sure some will object but we have an endless staff of attorneys. We convince the little peons very quickly that by the time they are finished paying their court costs and lawyer fees they will wind up with much less than what we are offering. Is this just, right, fair, moral --HELL NO!!!!!!! Is it legal -- probably!

Larry Hogan
Anaheim Hills California
Orange County Register

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in the e-mails to The Right Thing: Sound Off section of this Web site are solely the views of the those who sent them. They do not reflect the views of Jeff Seglin, The New York Times Syndicate or The New York Times Company.