Kelo vs. New London: a victory for progressives
There’s been much grumbling recently about the Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo versus New London, from both sides of the political spectrum. Libertarians worry about the increase in state power, and dream about the horrible abuses of eminent domain that a crooked government might invent. Progressives, because of our natural distrust of large corporations, are afraid this law will simply be used to enhance corporate power over society. It is indeed an odd state of affairs to have both groups mad about the same decision. Progressives, I argue, might take this as a sign that they should reevaluate their interpretation of the case.
Let’s remember the facts of the case: The elected representatives of the people of New London decided it would be in the best of the citizens of New London to redevelop a portion of the city. They hoped to buy out the current residents using the power of eminent domain, paying fair market value for the houses, and begin a development project that would include both public and private organizations. The Supreme Court simply ruled that the mere fact that there was a private component to the development could not prevent the city from using its power of eminent domain.
It’s important for progressives to realize that this legal challenge was part of a much larger attack by business interests on the entire legal basis for land-use regulation. This court case was merely a convenient step in that larger journey, as far as these interests are concerned. These forces are trying to define all regulation as a “taking,” which would require compensation by the government. If this general principle were to ever gain legal standing, which is a distinct possibility now that President Bush can appoint a few new justices, the environmental and social consequences would be horrendous. We progressives should thus be glad that the Supreme Court has turned back this challenge to common sense, and that elected representatives remain free to carry out the greater good, consistent with the Constitution and common law. We should also take it as a lesson that not everything that is good for a corporation is bad for the broader progressive agenda.
