Think twice before making changes to eminent domain, CCM told the state legislature’s Judiciary Committee and Planning and Development Committee. Since the impassioned public response to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, the two committees have been reviewing Connecticut’s eminent domain laws.

“Eminent domain is an authority exercised with great care, deliberation and public scrutiny,” said CCM, noting that “no municipality wants to remove their own residents from their homes.” Eminent domain, when it is used, is used grudgingly, and as a last resort. Applauding the committees’ “deliberative and reasoned approach” to the subject, CCM warned that any modification to existing statutes must be made with a full understanding of all consequences.

CCM suggested the committees consider certain modifications and cautioned against adopting the radical changes suggested by special interests. CCM urged the committee to consider:

• Updating the State Uniform Relocation Assistance Act so that displaced property owners are fully compensated for the costs of relocation.
• Re-defining “just compensation” so that it is not limited to fair market value but could include a “market plus” approach that takes into account social costs and the future worth of the property post-development.
• Requiring that local legislative bodies approve of project areas to be acquired by eminent domain and that they articulate clear expectations and goals for development and redevelopment plans.
• Requiring communities to review and reassess development and redevelopment plans after a period of time if no activity has occurred.

CCM urged the committees to reject proposals that would prohibit use of eminent domain for purposes of economic development or that would require approval of the property owner before land could be acquired. Such measures would “severely restrict or eliminate needed eminent domain authority,” CCM said. Similarly, a state-mandated moratorium that would be in effect until such time as the General Assembly enacts “substantive modification” of eminent domain laws or “expressly repeals” the moratorium language would severely hamper projects already approved or begun.

Issues to consider

CCM asked the committee to bear in mind the importance and the history of eminent domain, specifically:

• It facilitates valuable and much needed public services and facilities.
• It is a centuries–old, constitutionally recognized right of government.
• Discussion of eminent domain reform must include reform of the state-local tax system and land-use practices. If eminent domain reform legislation curbs municipalities’ ability to grow their tax base, towns and cities must be provided with other options for raising revenue.

CCM pledged to continue to work with legislators “to ensure that property owners are treated fairly and that the fundamental authority of municipalities to acquire property via eminent domain for public purposes remains viable.”

If you have any questions, please call Jim Finley, Ron Thomas, or Gian-Carl Casa at (203) 498-3000.