Posted on 02/23/2005 11:21:51 AM PST by Graybeard58
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Tuesday toward a group of New London, Conn. homeowners fighting to keep their land. But the justices seemed equally skeptical of their own power to keep the city from seizing property to create an upscale development.
It's the first major case on eminent domain, the power of the government to condemn property for redevelopment, to reach the high court in years.
Justice Antonin Scalia was the most vocal member of the court during the arguments. He said a Connecticut developer is "taking property from someone who does not want to sell it."
The justices fired relentless questions at a lawyer representing the New London residents about why he thought the court should be involved in this dispute and how he would have them distinguish between proper and improper property seizures.
In 2000, the private, nonprofit New London Development Corporation notified Susette Kelo and Matthew Dery, among others, they had to sell their homes within four months because they were in the way of a large development project.
Kelo and Dery refused, but NLDC said the request was justified because the neighborhood is economically depressed, and a proposed new development would bring increased tax revenue and attract jobs.
But "every home and church would produce more tax revenue if it were a Costco or a private development," said Scott Bullock, Kelo's attorney, who argued before the court.
Kelo and Dery argued in their brief that if nothing more than increased tax revenue or job growth is required to constitute a public use, then "there is scarcely any private use or business for which the power of eminent domain could not be used."
Wesley Horton, who appeared before the high court on behalf of the City of New London, said the few people who don't want to sell their land are making the whole community suffer.
"We're talking about an economically depressed community," he said at a news conference after the arguments, noting that "hold-outs" like the Kelos or Derys slow down economic development and force developers to build in the suburbs, contributing to urban sprawl.
Horton also said places like the World Trade Center would never have been built had it not been for some people sacrificing their land for the greater public good.
But the justices had different concerns.
"Are you saying the government could take (land) from 'A' and give to 'B' if 'B' is richer?" Scalia asked incredulously.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to side with Scalia.
"For example, if there is a Motel 6 and the city wants a Ritz Carlton, is that OK?" Ginsburg asked.
Horton said taking land from one person and giving it to another without public benefit is not a sufficient justification for public use. But he said higher taxes are sufficient to generate a greater public good that will trickle throughout the entire community.
While Horton said his clients are concerned for the welfare of those who don't want to sell land, there comes a point when the community needs to move forward.
"It's obviously very sad," he said after his court appearance. "But you have to remember that (the same thing happens) with roads and railroads."
Bullock, however, said his clients aren't against economic development.
"We think the Supreme Court understands. What we are talking about here is taking people's homes and businesses. We are here to protect the Kelos and the Derys of the world, not to prevent development."
A decision is not expected for several months.
Well, then, the "whole community" can pass the hat until they raise enough money to change the holdouts' minds. Case closed.
WRONG! Eminent Domain is the power of government to seize property to use it for public improvements. Such as highways, water treatment plants, police and fire stations, etc...
It is NOT for government to use its power of force to seize private property from Owner A to transfer it to Owner B because Owner B will generate more tax revenue.
Scalia and Ginsburg on the same side during oral arguments? Was that a pig I saw flying overhead?
Eminent Domain update. My mouth is open in amazement at the lawyers giving socialistic principles as their argument to support the theft of private property.
My fingers are crossed that the SC stands up for private property rights. But I'm not holding my breath.
The question is real simple, do we own our property or is everything owned by the government? I have long believed that with the way government is today owning a house means you have on less landlord.
Yet that is precisely the argument they are using.
This reminds me of what happened up here in Bloomington Minnesota. A car dealer (I believe Walser) owned a car lot for over 20 years. Best Buy decided that they wanted the land to build their new head quarters. The city council condemned the land and sold it to Best Buy. Very scary and disgusting.
ping
Exactly. Its simple.
This is not a case of justified eminent domain.
Really, the entire concept of eminent domain, which in included in the constitution, is a socialist sort of idea. It's all about the government having the power to seize (force a sale of) private property for the public good.
One of the justices should have asked the developer lawyer - "Do you agree with this statement - From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Mine are too. This is a very important case.
Those darn refuseniks, always holding up progress.
Doo doo. The developer can find the land he needs. The trouble is that he wants to confiscate the land he WANTS.
Plus they get the land cheaper than if they had to negotiate with the property owner.
Supreme Court won't change. The Corporate Conservatives are for this, the Libs fall for any mushy social talk.
I'm sure Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas are on the right side. Sounds like Ginsberg might be. If Kennedy or O'Connor use their brains, this will be a win. Souter, Breyer, and Stevens are hopeless.
This is why I'm not a lawyer. My response would be something along these lines:
"You honor, I call your attention to Exhibit A -- THE FOURTH F#%&ING AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.