Eminent Domain and the Church
January 23, 2006
In 2003, government leaders in
Sand Springs,
Oklahoma,
adopted what they called "Vision 2025." The plan is billed as the
"largest set of public redevelopment projects in the history of
Tulsa
County."
The members of Centennial Baptist Church
in Sand Springs call it something else: an "unholy land grab." It's a
land grab for which we have the Supreme Court to thank.
Part of "Vision 2025" calls
for redeveloping "an abandoned industrial area" in Sand Springs for
"big box retailers" and other stores. However, the area in question
isn't exactly "abandoned": Not only is
Centennial
Church
located there, but it's also flanked by a McDonald's and a muffler shop.
Yet officials decided that the only
place a proposed "super center" could possibly go was—where
else?—where
Centennial
Church presently stands.
Since, as Pastor Roosevelt Gildon said, the church can't afford to move
elsewhere, it obviously does not want to sell. He asks, "If we leave, who
is going to minister to the black community in Sand Springs?"
The government doesn't care. It plans
on using its powers of eminent domain to take the land from Centennial. As
Reverend Gildon put it, "I guess saving souls isn't as important … as raking
in money for politicians to spend."
Well, unfortunately, that's good
enough for the Supreme Court, because in its 2005 Kelo decision, the
Court ruled that government can take property from one private party and give
it to another if it thinks that the latter use would generate more tax revenue.
It doesn't matter if, like
Centennial
Church, the property is
well-maintained and the owners do not want to sell. "Raking in money for
politicians to spend" satisfies the Constitution's requirement that such
takings be for "public use."
To put it mildly, Kelo is very
controversial. Congress is looking for ways to overturn it or at least limit
its reach. Someone who saw just how far Kelo could reach is UCLA law
professor Eugene Volokh. Following Kelo, he wrote that "one
predictable loser" in the aftermath of the decision would be nonprofit
groups such as churches. After all, even a run-down residence pays more taxes
than a church or a homeless shelter.
And that's exactly what's happened.
Centennial
Church was not the only church targeted
by "Vision 2025," however. Two other churches in the neighborhood
were bought out. Charles Haynes of the
First
Amendment
Center has pointed out
that, even before Kelo, churches were already having these kinds of
takings problems. After Kelo, we can expect "many more."
In this sense, Centennial is the
unfortunate canary in our legal coal mine. But just as Centennial is fighting
back, so can we. In her dissent, Justice O'Connor wrote that the
"beneficiaries" of Kelo will be those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political
process." It's up to us as Christians to make it clear to our
representatives that catering to those types of interests carries a steep
political price.
This is also another reason why the
make-up of the Supreme Court is so important. Kelo was decided by a 5-4
margin. It is hardly written in stone. If we act now, perhaps this
"vision" of the future will not come to pass.
