A spiritual twist on eminent domain

In many communities nationwide, eminent domain is a very serious controversy. Courts have ruled that private property can be seized for public use, and more recently, in the now-infamous Kelo ruling, private property can be seized for private use.

But here’s an interesting twist — how about seizing private property for religious use?

A city agency violated the separation of church and state when it seized a woman’s home to help a religious group build a private school in a blighted Philadelphia neighborhood, a state appeals court ruled yesterday.

In a 4-3 ruling, the Commonwealth Court said the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority should not have condemned Mary Smith’s property in North Philadelphia in 2003 so that the Hope Partnership for Education could build a middle school. The court said the seizure by eminent domain ran afoul of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

The partnership is a venture started by the Society of the Holy Child Jesus and the Sisters of Mercy, two Roman Catholic groups. The court ruled the authority may not take private property, then give it to a religious group for its private development purposes.

In this case, the Roman Catholic groups picked the land it wanted, approached local officials about taking it through eminent domain, and the local government agreed. This “entanglement between church and state” was legally problematic.

The lawyer representing the woman whose home was seized said, “In terms of Pennsylvania, at least, what the court is saying is that the … rationale of the U.S. Supreme Court does not give a blank check to take property, even if it’s blighted, without a public purpose.”

Interesting. Will conservatives who disagreed with the Kelo ruling reverse course on this case because of a pro-religion reflex? Would the Supreme Court make a distinction between seizing for commercial purposes and seizing for ministerial purposes? Hmm.

Will conservatives who disagreed with the Kelo ruling reverse course on this case because of a pro-religion reflex?

The country club conservatives won’t really care. The seem pretty ambivalent about Kelo. Yeah, they’re concerned that their private property could be siezed, but since they know that its the private interests that they are likely to be involved with benefitting from the taking, they don’t see too much of a downside.

Now the theocon wingnuts will love the idea of a taking for religious purposes in principle, however, they won’t care too much about this particular ruling as it involved the Catholic Church. In their view catholics “aren’t really christians”, so who cares about them?

  • I think the state and local governments should begin taxing all religions, just as they do every other business, particularly those church holdings which are “for profit”.

    Regarding “In their view catholics ‘aren’t really christians'”, I once was waiting to talk to the receptionist at the Jesuit Faculty Residence at the University of San Francisco. She was very busy answering phones. At one point I heard her say “This isn’t a Catholic church. It’s Jesuit.” She was no doubt responding to someone who wandered if the large and ornate University chapel was a parish (it wasn’t).

  • rationale of the U.S. Supreme Court does not give a blank check to take property, even if it’s blighted, without a public purpose.

    This misses the point a bit. We shouldn’t confuse the use of eminent domain with fighting blight.

    Government can condemn and destroy (or auction) blighted housing, and this isn’t automatically a bad thing. Whether they should do this in collusion with a religious organization and then use the power of eminent domain to bequest the property is the true issue. “Taking” the property through anti-blight laws is fine. They should have just done that and then auctioned it. If another party wants to take it for more money, tough for the church; that’s a free market.

  • In their view catholics “aren’t really christians”, so who cares about them?

    I bet the Washington Archdiocese (Supreme Court) would be saddened to hear you say that.

  • Eminent Domain has far surpassed its original intent. No longer is private property just seized for road construction and public utilities. Local governments have lately been condemning private citizens from their property just for tax purposes and political or economic gain. Legal cases are springing up all over the nation in which local governments are taking property away from one private party and giving it to another private or corporate party. In one recent case , a township in Ohio is trying to remove one of its residents through the use of eminent domain. The city wants to level houses in the area to make way for new condominiums, which will bring in more taxes. One retired couple is putting up a legal fight against the township and the matter will go before the courts.

    Lately however, the justice system has been in favor of eminent domain and its use to take property from one citizen, and give it to another. Most home owners would look at these acts as injustices against private property and individual rights protected by the constitution. Is there such a thing as private property in the US or does the government really own everything like in a communist society? Do you own your property or does the government? These are two questions that point straight at the heart of the eminent domain abuse issue.

    For anti-eminent domain abuse shirts go to http://www.thinkertees.com

  • Comments are closed.