High court to weigh eminent domain

Post-Gazetter ^ | Feb. 21, 2005 | Michael McGough

[FairOpinion]

When the U.S. Supreme Court returns to the bench tomorrow, it will hear arguments in a case that could lead to new rules on when government can seize private property from its owner and turn it over to another party in hopes of creating jobs and increasing tax revenue -- a common "public use" far removed from the highways and bridges that were the traditional purpose of eminent domain.

In the audience will be a man for whom this is a landmark case in more ways than one. Bill Von Winkle owns three buildings in the Fort Trumbull area of New London, Conn., which the city and a development agency have sought to acquire by eminent domain for an elaborate redevelopment plan anchored by a Pfizer pharmaceutical company research center.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether the redevelopment of Fort Trumbull, which the city believes will invigorate the economy of New London, is a "public use" that overrides the owners' right to hold on to their land if they choose.

For Scott G. Bullock, the lawyer for the New London property owners, the answer is obvious: "This is a clear abuse of eminent domain. If they can take these properties, any neighborhood is up for grabs."

(The Bush administration has declined to take sides on the matter, which given the federal government's own past use of eminent domain is being interpreted as a victory for the property owners.)

[FairOpinion]

Their decision will be very interesting and far reaching.

[FairOpinion]

An earlier, more detailed article on the subject and background:

Conn. Residents Want Court to Block Domain


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=703&e=10&u=/ap/20050219/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property

[flashbunny]

I pray that it will also be wise.

Eminent domain has turned into taking a donut shop from peter so paul can put up a starbucks and an IKEA. It's all about who will line the government's pockets with more tax revenue.

[GeronL]

This happened here recently and its still going on. A city condemned a mans land to give it to another developer... the man has a business sitting on that land.

[GeronL]

exactly

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

It's about time this horrendous abuse of the eminent domain be put on trial and dismantled.

"Actually, Von Winkle and the other property owners would receive payment fort heir property under Connecticut law and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says private property may not be "taken for public use without just compensation."

I think what is going to nip this practice in the bud is the very amendment state and federal governments use to confiscate land. They have been focusing on the "just compensation" part of the amendment. Hopefully, this trial will focus on the "public use" part of the bill.

Confiscating property in order to allow a business to use it so that the government can gain revenue through taxation is NOT the type of public use our Founding Fathers intended. And the U.S. Constitution is NOT a living document that enables the Socialist M.O. of redistributing wealth through taxation can be classified as a public use. A public use is as the article states: roads and bridges. Parks? Forests? We'll see. But I doubt it, as the policy of eminent domain also implies an urgent need.

If this goes through, Pfizer damn well better not try to stop me if I want to go into their building to use the facilities. I'd say if I and about 500 other people decided to stop in to that office complex brought-to-be for the public use and they stopped us, we'd have an occasion to sue. (I know, dream on.)

Next, we'll have to go after the Nature Conservancy, which uses this same tactic to buy private land at rock-bottom prices and then turn around and sell it to the federal government at a profit, but still below market value.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

"Supported by city governments -- not including Pittsburgh's -- and environmental organizations, New London argues in its brief that "employing the power of eminent domain to revitalize a municipality's economy satisfies the public use requirement."

The eco-Marxists have certainly tipped their hands with this case. Their Marxist belief of the elimination of private property supersedes their hatred of big business and all the environmental damage they have claimed for the past 30 years to be perpetrated by big business.

[Rabble]

"Next, we'll have to go after the Nature Conservancy, which uses this same tactic to buy private land at rock-bottom prices and then turn around and sell it to the federal government at a profit, but still below market value."

Would you please elaborate further on this, as I had no idea this is how the N.C. obtained land.

[rawhide]

Part of the problem is usually the landowners are not even receiving just compensation. They receive below market value, based on whatever the gov decides to pay.

[Eric Cassano]

The taking of private property from citizens to benefit private developers should not be tolerated. The politicians and developers who are involved in these acts of government-approved thuggery should be ashamed of themselves.

If a developer wants to acquire some property he should buy it the old fashioned way instead of conspiring with local government weasels to steal it. I'm so glad that this criminal activity is finally being exposed on such a high level.

Stealing private property is against the law. Using eminent domain for private gain is unethical, immoral and unconstitutional.

Here's a page with some good info on these eminent domain scams...
Eminent Domain for Private Gain

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Here's a previous thread on the topic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/906107/posts

I'll find the report that I read on their dealings and post a link to it.

[TChris]

I think eminent domain has been twisted and tortured into a monster completely unlike the original intent of the statute. Confiscating private property only to make it available to another private party is not what these laws were intended to do.

[TChris]

I think eminent domain has been twisted and tortured into a monster completely unlike the original intent of the statute. Confiscating private property only to make it available to another private party is not what these laws were intended to do.

[TChris]

The site double-posted my message with only one click of the button... Hmm...

[Michael.SF.]

Early prediction: 5-4 or 6-3 in support of the land owner.

[BedRock]

It seems to me that "just compensation" would be an equivalency to tax dollars that the adjuster has deemed "fair" for the years real estate taxes.

Using the formula that the tax amount was arrived at, it could also be used to find the amount of "just compensation" that the taxes were paid on that should be due the tax payer.

[Alas Babylon!]

I hope you're right. This court has been too hard to read. They've been all over the place the last two years on various decisions. I don't take it on faith that they'll do the right thing, but I still hope they do. Time to throttle back on government. It's what the Constitution is all about.

[pointsal]

The real rub comes from the toadies in the public works departments....suck ups.....The whole system is out of control.

Generally, it is not surprising to see the private land owner get the big-time shaft.

[Orange1998]

I am going through similar dealings. A private developer wants to "take" part of my property. He is building homes down the street but want to run sewer and water through my property. I told him fine get the portion appraised and we will talk. He refused and said we don't have to do anything but tell you what we want and willing to pay.

At first he offered nothing and eventually moved to pennies on the dollar. He will not even let me tap into the system and said "see you in court".

[nutmeg]

Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.