10/11/2006

Editorial

A 'yes' on 4 will extend property owners' rights

Long before the now-infamous New London, Conn., case in which a city seized private property under the banner of "eminent domain" only to turn it over to a private developer, there was Poletown.

That was the unconscionable state Supreme Court decision of 1981 that gave General Motors Corp. the right to simply erase a long-established neighborhood to make room for an auto plant.

It was an abomination, and the passage of time has not made it any more palatable. Some 3,500 people lost their homes; wrecking balls and bulldozers took down about 1,500 houses and businesses, several churches and a hospital. A tight-knit ethnic neighborhood and a way of life ceased to exist.

That decision was reversed in 2004, when the state Supreme Court ruled against Wayne County efforts to seize private property for a development near Metro Airport.

Now, however, we have Proposal 4 on the Nov. 7 ballot, which would go even further than the 2004 Supreme Court ruling and enshrine in the State Constitution prohibitions against using eminent domain for private economic developments. Government would retain its traditional right to acquire private land for public purposes, such as for roads or schools.

Given the existing Supreme Court ruling, some have said Proposal 4 is a belt-and-suspenders approach; protections already exist, this is just an extra layer.

That's not entirely correct. Proposal 4 would also increase the amount government must pay private property owners for seized land to 125 percent of its appraised value and could, in some cases, limit private development that really does have a public value.

Critics have said, for instance, that Proposal 4 would make redevelopment efforts more expensive and could also block projects like Comerica Park and Ford Field in Detroit, both of which have helped anchor a continuing downtown redevelopment.

State Sen. Tony Stamas, R-Midland, who introduced a joint resolution in 2005 that placed the measure on the ballot, argues that Proposal 4 would prevent a future court from re-adopting the 1981 Poletown decision as a precedent. From that perspective, Proposal 4 is a good thing.

State protections against the gross misuse of eminent domain already exist; but they did in 1981, too.

Proposal 4 is worth a "yes" vote Nov. 7