Eminent Domain Abuse: is it an issue in Seattle - a definitive study

Abstract

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort,” wrote Madison, and for this reason, “that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” This precept of justice was embodied in the Fifth Amendment’s protection of private property, where by constitutional understanding; property can be taken only for public use and upon the payment of just compensation. For reasons that are more regrettable than rational writes Kmiec “the courts have greatly relaxed the public use requirement. Inevitably, this invites the taking or eminent domain power to be misused - either by inefficient or corrupt application or both.” (Kmiec 2005). June 2005 the Federal Supreme Court ruled in favor of a private developer in the New London area to take private property from the Trumbull landowners to build a hotel, convention center, retail, marina, and a parking lot. The justification chanted by government authorities was money. Revenues generated through taxes from the redevelopment projects were expected (not guaranteed) to exceed what the residents were currently paying in taxes. Study determines the Kelo v New London ruling exposes businesses in Seattle to the same fate. Do business owners in the Denny Triangle, Lake Union and Bell Town areas feel threatened by any possibilities their businesses and properties could be taken away in the name of redevelopment? To what degree of confidence do business owners in Seattle have in their state constitution protecting their landowner’s rights? The intent of this research is to ascertain if citizens in the Seattle downtown area perceive their businesses are threatened by eminent domain and what impact, if any, the Kelo vs. New London decision might have on them or their place of business.