The City of Rockford is using eminent domain to help a private developer acquirernthe land on which the Torres Market sits.rnchain willing to move into the area. Rather than approachingrnthe Torreses and offering to bny their store, the developer goesrnto the cit)’ government, which begins eminent-domain proceedingsrnon the Torres property- and a half-dozen others. Oncernthe cit)’ gains title to the Torres Market, it will hand it over to therndeveloper, who will have eliminated the only competition forrnhis chain supermarket.rnI could multiply examples of eminent domain almost ad infinitumrnwhile never once leaving the boundaries of the Cit’ ofrnRockford, Illinois, and Winnebago Count)’. In fact, the four examplesrnthat I have just cited have all taken place within the pastrntwo years in an area of the eit)’ and countv no larger than a couplernsquare miles—and for ever)’ case that I have nieuHoned, atrnleast a half-dozen other eminent-domain proceedings have occurredrnin that tinv corner of our communih’.rnT he language of the Fifth Amendment seems so innocuousrn—or, rather, it seems a positive good, designed to protectrnus: “No person s h a l l . . . be deprived of life, libcrt)’, or properh’,rnwithout due process of law; nor shall private propert)’ berntaken for public use, without just compensation.” But how dornwe get from there to the Torres Market?rnTraditionally, in order to exercise the power of eminent domain,rngovernment has had to show, first, that it was taking thernland in order to use it for a public good; and second, that therernwas no other parcel of land that could be used for this particularrnproject. Wlien we hear the words “eminent doniain,” most ofrnus probably think of roads and canals. While the Llitzlers’ caserninvolved the use of an Illinois state law called “Quick Take,”rnunder which municipalihes can seize a man’s propert)’ first andrnnegotiate a price later, it was still a fairiy straightforward examplernof the use of eniinent doniain for a so-called public good.rnOf course, as with any public good, some will benefit more thanrnothers from the road that now rims across the Ditzlers’ farm;rnPropert)’ records show that wealthy and politically connectedrndevelopers own most of the land on both sides of the road. Hadrnit been rerouted to run up an existing road a few hundred feet tornthe east, the developers would have been shut out.rnHenry Hamberlin’s ease is also an example of a fairly traditionalrnuse of eminent domain. After roads, public buildingsrn(especially schools) probably accountrnfor most of the instances ofrneminent domain. The irony is that arnblack family lost its ancestral homernin order to rectify years of supposedrndiscrimination against blacks. Thern”public good” in this case was definitelyrnnot a private one.rnIn the last two examples, however,rnthings start to look gray. While arnplausible argument can be madernthat sanitary sewers are a publicrngood, the people through whosernyards the sewer is being run are re-rn_ ceiving the benefit only incidentally:rnI They will be hooked up to the sewerrn”I (partly at their own expense) becausernf. the law says that the sewer is toornclose for them not to be hooked up.rnBut the real point of the sewer is tornallow a new subdivision to be built inrnorder to enrich a developer. How,rnexactly, is that a public good?rnAnd what about the Torres Market? In the other cases I haverncited, private citizens have benefited (or been hurt) in the namernof the public good, but in each case, the land taken by eminentrndomain remained in the hands of government—a conditionrnthat seems to be implied in the Fifth Amendment clause “norrnshall private properfy’ be taken for public use, without just compensation.”rnBut when the Cify’ of Rockford aeqrures the Torresrnproperfy’, it will immediately hand it over to a private developer.rnHow, then, can the use of eminent domain be justified?rnThe answer is simple: If eminent domain can only be employedrnto take land for a public use, then all the cify has to do isrnexpand the definition of “public use.” Charles Box, our outgoingrnmayor, claims that the southwest quadrant of Rockfordrnneeds a full-ser’ice grocery store, and he is probably right. Hernalso believes that the Torres Market is not large enough to servernall the residents of the area, and that may be true. But evenrngranting the mayor’s arguments, how can they possibly justifyrntaking land from one private owner and handing it over to another?rnAbout a year ago, shortly after the City of Rockford announcedrnthat it was initiating eminent-domain proceedingsrnagainst the Torreses, I appeared on a local TV talk show withrnBarbara Richardson (the cify’s director of communify developmentrnat that time). Wlien the conversation turned to the cify’srnattempts to confiscate the Torres Market and other properties.rnMiss Richardson explained that she believed in a very expansivernuse of entinent domain: “If you believe that government hasrnany role in economic development, then you must believe thatrngovernment can do whatever is necessary in order to facilitaterneconomic development.” Even, apparentiy, redistributing privaternproperfy.rnRockford has not been alone in expanding the use of eminentrndomain. Detroit pioneered the concept almost 20 yearsrnago, when it condemned tire entire Poletown section of the cifyrnand handed the propert)’ over to General Motors for use as thernsite of a new automobile plant. More recentiy, the Institute forrnjustice, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative legal foundation,rnhas represented clients in similar eases in both AtiantiernCify’ and Pittsburgh.rn14/CHRONICLESrnrnrn