Menu

compiled by Lynn Snyder

Working to protect the rights of America’s farm and ranch landowners, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a property case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case, Kelo v. City of New London, is an appeal by a homeowner in New London, Conn., of a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling. Also joining the brief were 18 state Farm Bureaus, including Ohio.

The Farm Bureau brief contends the state Supreme Court is incorrectly allowing the city to use eminent domain authority to take private property for the purpose of turning the property over to business developers constructing businesses generating higher taxes.

"It is imperative that the Supreme Court hear from farmers and ranchers on this very important issue," said AFBF President Bob Stallman. "Agricultural land is the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers and important for U.S. food and feed production, but land used this way is not the highest income generator for government bodies. Tax revenue cannot be the basis for seizing private property."

According to AFBF General Counsel Julie Anna Potts, the Supreme Court’s ruling has the potential to affect every farmer and rancher nationwide. As Farm Bureau’s brief points out, each agricultural landowner is threatened "with the loss of productive farm and ranch land solely to allow someone else to put it to a different private use."

"The U.S. Supreme Court must rule whether government bodies can use eminent domain to basically seize nonblighted private property and hand it over to other private entities simply because they might earn higher tax income," Potts said.

In the Kelo case, eminent domain is being claimed to take waterfront property from private property owners, Susette Kelo and others, to give it to a private commercial entity that plans to develop the property into a waterfront hotel, office space, luxury homes and other retail businesses.

According to the Farm Bureau brief, the higher tax income and new jobs from the project are the stated justification by the city of New London. The case has nothing to do with slum clearance or blighted neighborhood improvement. The new construction is planned to complement a new research facility being built in the area.

Farm Bureau argues that municipalities cannot enter into partnerships with redevelopers solely to take homes and businesses for the purpose to "convert it into some commercial or industrial use that is touted as a higher generator of taxes and jobs." Municipalities cannot be allowed to use this extreme measure to try and solve their tax woes, according to the Farm Bureau brief.

The brief also suggests that municipalities should not be involved in speculative real estate ventures with private enterprise. "Speculative development projects are the province of private enterprise, not government," the brief says.

"The final decision will reverberate across the nation because this is the biggest eminent domain and private property case to be ruled on in years. We are optimistic that the Supreme Court will clarify the situation in favor of our farmers and ranchers," Potts said.

Ohio following similar case

Ohio Farm Bureau Director of Local Affairs Larry Gearhardt said Ohio is very interested in this case. A similar situation occurred in Hamilton County where the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas ruled against current private property owners.

According to a news release from the Institute of Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, the case Gearhardt is referring to involves a private property battle along Edwards Road in Norwood, Ohio. A developer desires to build a complex of private office buildings, condominiums and chain stores to replace homes and locally owned businesses in the neighborhood.

The developer offered to buy the affected homes, but some homeowners were not willing to sell, according to the Institute of Justice. That’s when the city government stepped in and conducted an urban renewal study to see if the area was "blighted."

After determining the area is "deteriorating," the city of Norwood used eminent domain. Eminent domain is only to be used to take private property for public use. "It is my opinion that the broad scope given to ‘public use’ by the courts is far beyond what most reasonable Ohioans would accept," Gearhardt said.

In the Norwood situation, landowners will be compensated for their property, but the courts will determine what is "just" compensation.

"We need the U.S. Supreme Court to narrow the definition of ‘public use,’ so it is aligned more closely to its original purpose," he said.

The next hearing for the U.S. Supreme Court case is in February. The Norwood decision is currently under appeal, and Ohio Farm Bureau is monitoring the case.