Supreme Eminence


Wherein Our Heroine is Nervous.
The case of the Fort Trumbull Seven gives me a deeply uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach. Part of my issue is that the concept of Eminent Domain has historically been about converting private property for public use: e.g. roads or railways. Using eminent domain as a means of amassing a parcel of property that will then immediately be sold to a private owner seems a subversion of the intent of eminent domain, even when it is presented as part of a civic redevelopment package. Yes, theoretically everyone can "win" when a company comes in to create jobs and increase the tax base. But what is the price of individual liberty?

Home ownership is often referred to as "The American Dream." But what happens when that dream comes into conflict with the realities of capitalism? Who will win this one? The "Dream" of home ownership is also reality for seven families in New London. It is difficult to consider this case and not put yourself in the shoes of these family members. Sympathy aside, they have a legal question that is compelling: is the creation of a giant research facility close enough to a public use to justify an eminent domain taking?

I don't know. The slippery slope beckons from both sides on this one, and I have always tried to resist its siren call. How many can hold out in an eminent domain case to keep such a potentially beneficial project from moving forward? Nine? Seven? One? What is to keep municipalities from eminent domain proceedings at any time because a more economically attractive option exists for that parcel of property? How economically benighted does an area have to be to justify this action?

Emotion also enters into the question for me - my grandmother-in-law used to live a short distance from Fort Trumbull. What if it were her home in question?

I don't have answers to these questions. Just that uneasy feeling.
Posted: Wednesday - February 23, 2005 at 07:25 AM         | |

©