A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has outraged some property owners and legislators and may have an impact on the progress of the proposed Front Range Toll Road (FRTR).The court’s June 23 ruling on Kelo vs. New London in Connecticut gave local government the right to use eminent domain power to take private property and transfer it to private investors for projects that foster economic development.In the case of the proposed FRTR, a private company would be given the right to evoke eminent domain without state government oversight.The firestorm of controversy over the government’s right of eminent domain has brought together an unlikely coalition of conservatives concerned about property rights, and liberals worried about the rights of the poor. In her dissenting opinion, retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”Local voices expressed concern as well.Marsha Looper of the Eastern Plains Citizen’s Coalition, a group opposing the FRTR, has been working with other Front Range citizen groups to form a statewide coalition. “On Aug. 6, we will sponsor an eminent domain activist conference in Denver, and at that conference we will officially announce the formation of the Colorado Citizens for Property Rights,” Looper said. The conference will feature a variety of speakers, including Steven Anderson of the Castle Coalition (part of the Institute for Justice); Sen. Shawn Mitchell of Broomfield; Joseph Becker of the Mountain States Legal Foundation; and Renee Nelson, chairman of the Jefferson County Republican Party.The right of eminent domain was established in the U.S. Constitution: the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from taking private property “for public use, without just compensation.”In the past, eminent domain has only been used to transfer private land to a government entity to provide roads, bridges and public buildings, such as fire stations, that will benefit everyone and be used by the public. In the Kelo case, the city of New London, Conn., sought to redevelop an older residential neighborhood to build a hotel, condominiums and a river walk. Most of the landowners sold their property willingly, but a few sued the city, maintaining that the redevelopment project wasn’t “public use.” The city maintained that, since the new development would promote economic development, a public purpose would be served.The backlash prompted both local and national efforts focused on imposing restrictions on the use of eminent domain at the state and local level.On June 29, a national property rights group, the Institute for Justice, announced a “Hands off my Home” campaign, dedicating $3 million to fight eminent domain at the state and local level. On July 18, the group filed a petition for a rehearing of Kelo vs. New London.Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family in a July New York Times article also expressed concerns that church property could be condemned for more lucrative purposes. On June 30, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would deny federal funds to any project that used eminent domain to force private property owners to sell their property.In Colorado, Rep. Al White (R-Winter Park) announced on July 11 that he is working on a constitutional amendment that would prevent local government from taking private property for private development. According to a Denver Post article, Gov. Owens also disagrees with the Supreme Court decision.
