By James W. Harris
"Bart Didden wanted to put a CVS pharmacy on his property in Port Chester, N.Y. He even obtained approvals from the local planning board.
"But because a portion of the CVS site was in a blighted redevelopment zone, Mr. Didden was told that planning board approval wasn't enough. He'd have to reach an understanding with a private company that had been selected by Port Chester officials to control all construction inside the renewal zone.
"The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S Port Chester, told Didden he'd have to pay $800,000 or give G&S a 50 percent stake in the CVS business. If Didden refused, Mr. Wasser said, he would have Port Chester condemn and seize his property and instead of a CVS he'd put a Walgreens drugstore on the site.
"Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal proceedings to seize Didden's land by eminent domain."
So begins a Christian Science Monitor story on what is shaping up as the next big U.S. property rights battle. The case has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will decide whether a local government can give a private company like G&S the power to extort payment from a property owner by using the threat of seizing that property.
The fight to defend Didden's property rights is being led by the Institute For Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest, non-profit law firm that defends individual rights. IJ became nationally famous for fighting the notorious Kelo eminent domain case, which they ultimately lost. In the Kelo decision, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments could seize private property and turn it over to favored private developers. That case set off a firestorm of protest across the country, leading many state legislatures to pass laws prohibiting Kelo-type seizures.
IJ hopes to persuade the Supreme Court to rule against the kind of extortion being used against property owner Didden.
"We want the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution does not permit governments or citizens acting on their behalf to demand money in exchange for allowing property owners to keep what is rightfully theirs," said Dana Berliner of IJ. "The very fact that we have to ask the highest court in the land for such a ruling underscores how precarious and threatening things are getting for ordinary American landowners."
"My case is about extortion through the abuse of eminent domain; it is about payoffs and government run amok," says property owner Didden. "It took me years of hard work to buy that property, pay off my mortgages and really feel like I own it. How dare the Village of Port Chester and this developer threaten me in this way. Unless the Supreme Court takes up my case, I fear for anyone else who owns a piece of property -- not just in Port Chester, but anywhere a politically connected developer is eyeing it."
This case, and the Kelo case, illustrate the ugliness of the sleazy deals local governments are making with developers to deprive property owners of their most basic rights. Let's hope that the Supreme Court rules against this practice.
Otherwise, government-connected developers across America will be given a green light to threaten property owners: "Your money or your land."
Sources:
Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0102/p02s01-usju.html
Institute for Justice http://www.ij.org/private_property/didden/12_18_06pr.html
