Government Affairs REPORT

State’s successes show:
Eminent domain laws shouldn’t block
economic development efforts

(Feb. 17, 2006) One of the most emotional issues in Connecticut over the past year or so has been New London’s use of eminent domain laws to clear the way for a major economic development project in the city. Lawmakers are now considering bills that would change Connecticut eminent domain law in response to that highly-charged situation.

It’s reasonable to explore modifying Connecticut’s eminent domain laws to provide more clarity and public accountability in the use of eminent domain. But lawmakers should be careful not to hinder the ability of state and local governments to use this critical tool for restoring blighted and abandoned properties and returning them to productive uses that can benefit the communities in which they’re located.

Connecticut has many high-profile success stories where eminent domain was used to give rebirth to properties that thought unusable and left for blight — such as the Harbor Yard and People’s Bank facilities in Bridgeport, the River Street municipal development in New Haven and the North Colony Street Industrial Park in Meriden.

CBIA shared its concerns with the legislature’s Planning and Development Committee this week on two bills that would affect the ability of state and local governments to repeat those success stories.

For example, Senate Bill 34 as currently written would segregate the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes from what’s considered by the law to be “public use.”

Because courts have ruled that economic development can in fact be considered a public benefit, it would be better to include economic development projects under the umbrella of “public use” projects.

CBIA believes SB-4 can be modified to protect the interests of residents and the state’s economic development efforts alike. But the association opposes House Bill 5038 because it would significantly complicate the process for using eminent domain and all but ensure it could not be used in the future for economic development projects.

The bill also would:
• create a “grant program” to reimburse any person who owns property acquired by eminent domain, even when their rights to compensation is already protected by the Constitution.
• create a new state bureaucracy designed to scrutinize and regulate the use of eminent domain in a way that would unreasonably impede its use.

Policy-makers need to guard against acting on eminent domain in a way that would be well-intentioned but would cut off critical economic development opportunities.

Exercising eminent domain is a critical tool for restoring abandoned, deteriorating and now-unsafe properties to productive use for the benefit of the communities in which they are located.

For more information, contact CBIA’s Eric Brown at browne@cbia.com or 860-244-1900.