The tragic tale of Mrs. Johnson

By Sam Fran Scavuzzo
Senior Staff Writer
March 1, 2006

Hypothetical Mrs. Johnson has lived on Montague Street for 30 plus years in the city of Nonexistence. A good taxpaying, church-attending, hard-working American widower, Mrs. Johnson never misses an opportunity to make her neighborhood better or encourage other neighbors to do the same. In recent years—despite her best efforts—the neighborhood has become poverty stricken and the standard of living has declined. Enter Big Scary Corporation who wants to tear down our friend Mrs. Johnson’s house to make a bunch of heartless condos that will destroy any neighborhood that existed before and prevent future ones from developing. Mrs. Johnson’s getting a raw deal, right?

The situation presented above basically is the framework of eminent domain. Why am I in favor of it then? How could a sensible and sensitive man such as me choose to crush everything Mrs. Johnson has worked for her entire life? Do I enjoy the suffering of elderly neighborhood watch people? Is big business in my back pocket?

On the surface this would appear so. Big business sees a neighborhood as nothing more than profit. Mrs. Johnson and others around her as minor problems to deal with in order to achieve their ultimate goal of Condo Kingdom. But—and the compassionate crazy liberal that I am shudders to think I could even ask such a question—what if it’s a good thing? What if the right thing for this neighborhood is to start over?

As much as I do not like big business—or condos for that matter—economically, at least, a neighborhood like this one would almost certainly improve. Even if she implores everyone around her to keep his or her house clean and be the best people they can, after Mrs. Johnson is gone, the area will probably still go to hell. Realistically, the neighbor should take the life preserver while he or she still can.

Eminent domain has been a part of America since its inception. The Fifth Amendment supports it while protecting the rights of the little man by securing that no land is seized without fair market value. ExpertLaw.com sites this fair market, often criticized as being anything but fair, as “the highest price someone would pay for the property were it in the hands of a willing seller.” Additionally, “fair value includes more than the price of an item of property or parcel of real estate.” This is just compensation. Also, if a person feels this system is abused—as it sometimes is, like any other system—complaints can be made in court.

Ideally, eminent domain protects an area and allows for growth to occur. What has happened anyway is that the system has been abused and overused. If eminent domain goes back to the tenets it was originally founded on, then, when used accordingly, can bring great relief and enormous potential to areas that were once stagnant. Revitalized communities in Baltimore, New York City and even Camden have attracted attention to boroughs and neighborhoods that once were havens for crime and poverty.

In a perfect world, eminent domain would not be necessary. Neighborhoods would last generation after generation, and everything would always be the same. Sadly, this isn’t true, nor will it ever remotely come close to becoming a reality. Eminent domain, if used correctly, can be a solution to great problems. If used excessively or unnecessarily, it can cause harm much greater than the original problem. Responsible use of it can turn any place around.

scavuzzos1@lasalle.edu