Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of
Supreme Court of
410
Johnson,
pp. 807-814
Facts: During a period of high
unemployment, the city of
Issue: Was eminent domain used to
take private property for private use contrary to the Michigan Constitution?
Rule: The power of eminent domain
may not be invoked unless it is used for a “public use or purpose”.
Analysis: The court says that because
it is clear a private entity will benefit from this arrangement,
a higher level of scrutiny is required to make sure that there is a “clear and
significant” public benefit. The court
believes that such a benefit has been demonstrated.
In
a strong dissent, Justice Ryan claims that this is a case of bad means being
justified by (maybe) good ends. Ryan
basically says that GM made a power move to extract what they wanted from the
city by threat of moving their plant to another state. Ryan sees this situation as a classic case of
appropriating private property for the private gain of another party.
Ryan
says that in prior cases, the standard of “public purpose” has been used for
taxation while “public use” has been used for eminent domain. Ryan says the different standards are
justified because eminent domain is far more intrusive than taxation and thus
the former should be scrutinized more closely.
Conclusion: The majority finds that the
taking of land is constitutional and upholds the trial court’s decision.
Notes
and Questions
1. It doesn’t look like
it. Judicial review of government land
grabs as authorized by legislatures is very limited both under the United
States Constitution and under the Michigan Constitution.
2. This is a disaster. It’s a huge wealth transfer from private
individuals, mostly poor, to a private corporation. I think it is entirely unjustifiable. It reminds me of a sports team holding a city
for ransom by threatening to move to another city. If they would make more money in another
city, they should just go there. In this
case, if GM would be more profitable by moving their plant to a sunbelt state, they should just go and do that. Another way to reduce unemployment in
3. This seems a little
hypocritical. If you really believe that
what the city or state or corporation are doing is wrong, I think you shouldn’t
help them in the first place. If you
give them your legal services while really believing that they’re wrong and
they actually win, it shows that either the system doesn’t work, or you’re wrong. If you’re wrong, you shouldn’t advocate
legislation that will change the (correct) result in the future. If the system doesn’t work, then you were
wrong in the first place helping a bad policy win.
4. Okay!