 |
|
|
|
 |
Editorial
08/15/1999 The Detroit News
The city of Detroit has begun a suit to take property from private owners along the riverfront for the use of gambling casinos. The city claims the "takings" are necessary to provide a public benefit. But are they?
The city's rationale for the land condemnation is that the projected complex of gambling casinos along the riverfront is necessary to provide jobs and economic growth for Detroit residents. State law allows cities to take "private property necessary for a public improvements ... or for public purposes."
Determining whether casinos really qualify as part of a legitimate "public purpose," however, may not be so easy. The leading state Supreme Court case in this issue is Poletown Neighborhood Council vs. Detroit, in which the court in 1981 allowed the city to condemn land and give it to the General Motors Corp. for a Cadillac plant on the promise of several thousand high-paying manufacturing jobs. (Not all of the promised jobs materialized.)
Even in that case, which would seem to favor the city, the court said, "If the public benefit was not so clear and significant, we would hesitate to sanction approval. ... Such public benefit cannot be speculative or marginal."
Two justices dissented strongly from the ruling, saying the principle of seizure that it promulgated had "no internal limit." And in a 1988 state Court of Appeals ruling approving the condemnation of land and its transfer to Chrysler Corp., the judges did so under protest, noting they were required to do so under the Poletown ruling, which they called "unconscionable."
More recently, in 1993, the Supreme Court appeared to back away from the Poletown decision, refusing to uphold the city of Lansing's attempt to condemn two rental properties that denied access to a cable TV operator. The court said condemnation power must be applied reasonably and must be "essential or indispensable to the accomplishment of the objects and purposes of the municipality."
Are gambling casinos "indispensable" to economic development or the creation of jobs? Not really. The city has other means at its disposal for these purposes. These include getting crime under control, lowering taxes on businesses and residents, delivering public services efficiently and providing a decent educational system. Failure to do so shouldn't then become an excuse for trampling on property rights.
One other way to encourage economic growth is to give property owners some assurance that their land won't be seized and transferred to some more powerful interest, as frequently happens in banana republics. Indeed, the city's record of condemnations may be a factor in its relatively slow economic growth compared with other parts of Michigan.
We wish the casinos well. But if the casinos are to be the engine of economic growth that the city claims, they should be able to afford the market price of the river district land. If they need the city's eminent domain power to be able to set up shop on the riverfront, their ability to generate economic benefits looks a great deal more "speculative and marginal."
Our view
The condemnation of river district land for the casinos is bad policy and may not meet legal criteria of a public benefit.Opposing view
The casinos will provide jobs and economic development, which justifies taking private land for them.
Send mail to alra@pacifier.com with questions or comments about this web site.
All pages on this website are ©1999-2001, American Land Rights Association. Permission is granted to use any and all information herein, as long as credit is given to ALRA.
