|
Property Rights and Wrongs
By Ritu Kalra, W'96
Professor Georgette Chapman Poindexter weighs in on the
intersections of human geography and real estate law and finance.
The moment the alert popped up on her e-mail,
Georgette Chapman Poindexter dropped interest in
everything else.
She was in her office talking on the phone to an attorney
who was peppering her with questions about a lawsuit in
which she was serving as an expert witness.
For the upcoming court case, this was a vital conversation.
But it was also doomed.
It was June 23, 2005, around 10 a.m., and judging from
the flood of e-mail alerts that were lighting up her computer
screen, it could only mean one thing: The Supreme Court
had rendered a verdict in Kelo v. New London.
The city of New London, CT, had wanted to take residen-
tial homes in order for private developers to build a hotel, offices,
parking space and retail shops to complement a nearby
Pfizer facility. Seven holdouts, led by Susette Kelo, had sued.
The decision would shed light on the reach of eminent
domain and the definition of public use, questions Chapman
Poindexter has spent her career ruminating.
"I said, 'I'm sorry, I'm not paying any attention to you be-
cause they've just decided Kelo. I can't talk to you right now.
I have to go read this opinion,'" Chapman Poindexter recalls
telling the bewildered litigator on the other end of the phone.
"My assistant called me, screaming, 'I'm getting the opinion!' It was something like the World Series," she says.
When Public and Private Interests Collide
The excitement quickly spread. Within hours, the high
court's decision galvanized those in the industry. It was a contentious 5-4 split that gave local governments a new weapon
to wield in their pursuit of economic development: broad
range to condemn private homes and small businesses to
enhance the tax base. The outcry was immediate and intense,
across the spectrum of the political aisle. Some assailed the
decision as an evisceration of the Fifth Amendment, which
establishes that private property shall not be taken for public
use without just compensation.
To Chapman Poindexter, who has spent years wrestling with
the complexities of land use, the decision—despite the sting
of the reproachful argument made by departing Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor—was as it should be: an agonizing balance
between individual property rights and the collective interest.
With this ruling, O'Connor wrote in her dissent, "The
specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is
to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-
Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a
factory."
Counters Chapman Poindexter: "Framed like that, you've
just got to say 'no.' But maybe we shouldn't be so cynical."
"If we look at New London, it's a kind of down-on-its-luck,
struggling-to-survive city. You say to an electrician,
'We're going to have this great new employment opportunity
for you, but this lady won't give up her house.' Well, what
right do you have, Mrs. Kelo, from keeping this man from
being able to feed his children?"
|
