Risky business in SimCity

On Thursday the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can seize private property only to sell the land to other private citizens. \nWhat?!\nWhen phrased so simply, the ruling sounds fairly ridiculous. But in reality this is just an extension of the Fifth Amendment, a law as old as the United States that gives the government power of "eminent domain." This means the government may purchase private land for "public use," typically for roads, schools, parks, etc. Landowners have no say in the matter, though they must be adequately compensated for their property. \nThursday's case, however, concerned New London, Conn., where the local government was forcing several residents out of their homes to make way for an office complex. The residents argued that this was not a clear public use of their land, since the property would go right back into private hands. \nThe Supreme Court thought otherwise. In the 5-4 ruling the Court stated, "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue." In other words, if the government thinks having a shopping mall in place of your house will be better for the community, they can make that happen.\nWhile this does seem to make being in local government a lot like playing SimCity, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Replacing slums with a factory or office building can do wonders for a poor town. A single belligerent citizen can stop the construction of a much-needed apartment complex by refusing to sell his land to the developer. This ruling can help stop individuals from holding an entire community back. \nBut it's not all roses -- there is the issue of lobbying pressure. A multimillion-dollar retailer like Wal-Mart or Target can really put the corkscrews on a corrupt or weak local official to knock down a neighborhood to make room for one of its stores. In such cases it might not actually be better for the community as a whole to see a new shopping center. Putting the power of such detailed residential development into the hands of a few government employees could have disastrous consequences. Imagine a world where one local official with a corporation dangling $2 million in front of his face decides whether or not your home is bulldozed. \nAt its roots this ruling gave local government more power, plain and simple, and that is always a risky move. With a 5-4 split on the Supreme Court it looks like the ruling just squeaked by, but the ruling is made. While the worst case scenarios can be pretty bad, with intelligent, decent people in charge the additional control can be very helpful to certain communities. The only thing everyday people like us can do is to make sure that we have solid leaders in our local government. \nNow more than ever it is important that we pay attention to who is running in the local elections. They could end up deciding where you live.