In homage to the upcoming season, I am writing the 12 Days of Condemnation, highlighting a dozen of my favorite eminent domain decisions. Second, a 1976 Michigan opinion halting the construction of the M-14 highway until the Department of Transportation acquired residential use restrictions.
In 1974, the Michigan State Highway Commission began acquiring property to construct the M-14 highway, which “was designed to provide a limited access connecter between I—275 and I—96 on the east and US—23 on the west.” “In order to build this project, ten residential lots in the Lakepointe Village Subdivision were acquired by voluntary purchase agreements, and the lot owners, who are not parties to the instant case, were fully compensated.”
However, those properties were subject to “residential deed restrictions limiting the use of the lots to single family dwellings” that benefitted all the other property owners in the subdivision. When the Highway Commission ignored those deed restrictions and commenced construction, the other property owners in the subdivision sued, seeking an injunction.
The Court of Appeals recognized that “the Courts of this state have repeatedly held that restrictive covenants are valuable property rights, treated as easements at law. In keeping therewith, negative reciprocal easements ‘cannot be taken for the public use without due process of law and compensation, therefore; the validity of such restriction not being affected by the character of the parties in interest.” As such, the Highway Commission was violating the neighboring owners’ constitutional rights. The question boiled down to whether an injunction could be issued.
The Court of Appeals cast aside various objections to an injunction. The Highway Commission asserted that there was not a legal basis to force it to condemn the owners' property rights since they could file a claim for damages. This argument was disregarded when the Court of Appeals held that the property owners were not seeking to compel the Highway Commission to actually do anything, like condemn their property interests. Rather, the owners were merely demanding that the Highway Commission stop violating their property rights. “Conspicuously absent in the present case is any suggestion… requiring the defendant to restore the subdivision to its original condition before the defendant started the project, i.e., do an affirmative act. Instead, the injunction merely requires defendant to refrain from completing the project in violation of plaintiffs' hereinbefore stated constitutional right.”
My favorite part of the opinion comes when the Court of Appeals prioritizes following the law over the parade of horribles asserted by the Highway Commission. “Defendant has raised the specter of crippling ramifications to the Detroit area economy because approximately 3,400 people will be out of work until the defendant acquires the property rights. Furthermore, defendant informs us that the whole State may suffer irreparable injury because continuance of the injunction raises the possibility that close to 20 million dollars in Federal funds will be lost.” The response, grossly oversimplified: so what, follow the law.
I often cite Bales when condemning authorities argue that the law should be relaxed because something bad will happen otherwise. Nope. Respect for private property rights is enshrined in both the United States and Michigan Constitutions. While those private property rights are subservient to the government’s ability to use eminent domain for the benefit of the public, the government must follow the law when doing so.