Weekly News Column Opinion and Laughs on The Record

Court: Want to Replace One Business with Another, OK

Jeff Borgardt's Soundoff from Summit Column 6/30/05

Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding the power of eminent domain has put the fear of Bob back in local property owners.
 The 5-4 ruling officially permits local government to seize homes or businesses and replace them with other homes or businesses deemed more beneficial to the community.
  If a government needs to build a hospital, highway or power plant at a site — that is one thing.
    But for local government to force out long-time residents living in modestly priced housing just to build more expensive digs doesn’t seem quite right.
    That’s what the justices refused to stop from happening to nine residents of New London, Conn.
    In many municipalities, developers and local leaders set out to revitalize a segment of town. This could mean farewell to current residents.
    In the Desplaines Valley News area, Bridgeview businesses near 79th and Harlem feared for their future when the Chicago Fire announced they would build a stadium there.
    A State Rep. introduced a bill to grant Bridgeview “quick take” authority to seize properties and Buddhist Monks marched on Village Hall in protest when they learned their monastery could be seized by the village. However, instead of going forward, officials wisely decided to move the stadium to another site at 71st and Harlem where an old,
abandoned truck terminal sat and no eminent domain was needed.
    Allegations of ‘strongmen’ trying to force out property owners also occurred in regards to the Bridgeview Golf Dome.
    In Hodgkins, a host of businesses and residential properties have been purchased by the village in order to build a two-story Menards hardware store.
    So should the villages do this; Force out old businesses to make room for newer, better ones?
    Well, they paid fair market value for the property (it should also be noted that the incumbent board was just reelected in Hodgkins. The board was not even challenged in Bridgeview. If the public was outraged by this practice, they could exercise their democratic power to change to a
local government opposed to this business.)
    The U.S. Constitution says governments cannot take property without “just compensation.”
    The Supreme Court decision also states that states have the ability to provide greater property protections than currently exist on a federal level.
    I’d like to outright condemn the Kelo v. City of New London ruling but in some cases the desperate need for economic development may outweigh individual property rights.
    Many areas in Illinois suffer from blight and big development projects often cannot move forward without a few pieces of property standing in the way. Once completed, the development helps the entire community with
greater tax proceeds.
    Balancing private and public interests is not easy.