Simpsons v. City of Springfield
Issue at hand: Can Sideshow Bob bulldoze the Simpson Family's house to make way for the much-needed Matlock Expressway?
Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 6, Episode 5, “Sideshow Bob Roberts’' (4 October 1994). 20th Century Fox/Disney.
In season 6, episode 5, “Sideshow Bob Roberts” Sideshow Bob, the character who regularly tries to kill Bart in the show, becomes the mayor of Springfield. Naturally, one of his first actions in office is building the “Matlock Expressway”, which coincidentally goes through the Simpson’s property and requires bulldozing the Simpson's house.
In a conversation between Bob and the Simpsons, Bob says:
Bob: “So sorry, Mr. Simpson. Your house is blocking... construction of our new Matlock Expressway. Now, I am a fair man. You will have 72 hours to vacate. At that time, we will blow up your house and any remaining Simpsons.”
Legal Question: Putting aside the blowing up of any Simpsons still in the house and giving them 72 hours to vacate, can Sideshow Bob as Springfield Mayor destroy the Simpson’s house and take over their property in this way?
Result: Yes, the City of Springfield wins.
Legal Background: The Fifth Amendment of the United States constitution is best known for the line “Pleading the fifth” where people can refuse to incriminate themselves when asked whether they committed a crime. It is used by criminals who are arrested in compromising situations to teenagers in the US when asked by their parents why they did something.
However, among other rights, the fifth amendment also states that the government cannot take someone’s property without properly compensating them.
Relevant Excerpt of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Historically, the US Supreme Court has generally been quite deferential in allowing the federal, state, and local governments in taking private property as long as the government paid the owner a sufficient amount (i.e. “just compensation”) and the taking was benefiting the public in some way. This included a federal agency in Washington DC taking over a department store in DC to help “beautify” some of the city’s run down areas, the Hawaii state legislature distributing ownership of land from a few landowners to the people living on the land due to problems with concentration of land ownership, and a city called New London giving private land to private developers since it would promote local development and be for “public use”. The amount paid for a property is its fair market value.
The Court has in some cases that government regulations that indirectly affect a certain property can be unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has supported governments when they want to take someone’s property outright.
Analysis: Here, the City of Springfield would end up winning. There is a clear public use for the Matlock expressway, much more so than for instance the city of New London giving private property to be redeveloped. The City of Springfield would need to provide fair compensation to the Simpsons, but, if Sideshow Bob had stayed in power, 742 Evergreen Terrace would have been leveled to the ground to make way for the Matlock Expressway.