« Where's the Opening? | Main | Dual Responsibilities »
July 02, 2005
The Flip Side of Eminent Domain?
As awful as it is for some local government to decide that your home's property would better "serve" the community as a parking deck or office complex, consider the case of the Medical Arts Building in downtown Atlanta, which just today was set ablaze probably by vandals.
The building has been empty for over a decade. In its heyday, it was considered one of the most advanced medical buildings in the world. This is what it looked like
And now, this is what it looks like (pre-fire) as it languishes, empty
In recent years, two deals to purchase the building have fallen through. Most recently record producer Dallas Austin tried to purchase the building to convert it into a boutique hotel. The building has had the same owner since the 1970's, an owner who let it slip into disrepair and because of a refusal to sell (allegedly he is asking too high of a price) the building sits vacant, overrun by vandals and vagrants. Shouldn't the city of Atlanta condemn this building in order to force a sale to an owner who will maintain it properly -- regardless of the increased tax revenue the city is likely to see?
It's a confusing world we live in, not one that generally calls for one size fits all fixes. Interestingly, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's stinging rebuke to the majority opinion in the Kelo v New London decision took a well reasoned middle ground position that almost certainly would allow for a city like Atlanta to use eminent domain to do something about blighted property like the Medical Arts Building.
My hope is that the many politicians who are eager to pass laws and Constitutional amendments in response to the Kelo decision don't get carried away and prevent local governments from legitimate uses of eminent domain. The O'Connor opinion, which clearly should have carried the day, is an excellent guideline for formulating a policy that protects legitimate usage and prevents egregious abuse.
The fight to replace Justice O'Connor will surely not be a tribute to her willingness to find common ground on the court and more often than not single-handedly broker a consensus opinion that prevented the court from veering off in too radical a direction one way or another. The push to craft legislation to correct the court on one decision O'Connor's moderation was not able to prevail on should be a bipartisan cooperative effort that balances the needs of the many with the rights of the individual, just as I suspect O'Connor would have had it.
Posted by Chris at July 2, 2005 12:51 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)