Posted on 06/23/2005 8:07:27 AM PDT by Stew Padasso
Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
HOPE YEN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.
Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.
The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
This is a dark day for America. Government now has the right to steal your property at will for whatever reason it wants. And now private corporations are party to the land grab. Somehow, I doubt if you had pitched this idea to our founding fathers they would think such government seizures are a good idea, much less Constitutional ideas.
Well, it's clear that the "STATISTS" are a majority.
Irony--they're all notorious lefties except Kennedy, who's a "closet" lefty--more an more looking like he's dispossesed of common sense.
This sux beyond belief.
Change the make-up of the court.
Why on earth is that 2/3 value such a consistent abuse of the victimized homeowner? Simple answer, if you hire a lawyer, you pay 1/3 of any amount achieved by sale or settlement to the lawyer (who may NOT get you the full value and certainly won't get you more than full value).
The government takes your property right away, leaving payment amount to be determined by settlement or suit and you either accept 2/3 or wait three or four years of litigation to obtain, at best, the full value but have to pay 1/3 to the lawyer plus costs. You also lose the time value of the money. Imposing embarassment on those few officials capable of embarassment puts nothing in your pocket. Five judges of SCOTUS: Stevens, Souter, KENNEDY (who betrayed the babies), Ginsberg and Breyer have created a constitutional growth industry for gummint corrupters public and private. This was too much even for Sandy Baby. Next vacancy is Rehnquist who voted the right way so there will be no relief there.
Souter, the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks George H.W. Bush.
Disgusting.
"I don't know, but I heard that property taxes and real estate prices are much higher in Canada. Taxes in general are higher. I hope we don't get to the point where we will have to move to Canada, because it is a freer country."
HUH?
It would be theft if you or I did it....even if we tossed the owners a little money after the fact. Let's call it what it is and not weasel our way around like a pack of lawyers.
Revolution is a necessary part of maintaining our rights as American citizens. I mean that.
The reason we have the right to bear arms is to defend ourselves against the government, not individuals.
Well, the place to look in this matter is not at the SCOTUS. It is at your local elected officials. Are they planning some such eminent domain proceedings? If so, then that needs to be an issue in the next election.
All that is required is that nobody get elected who is in favor of eminent domain actions against private property.
Railing at the Supreme Court is going to do nothing. They have ruled. Time to move the activism in this area to local government. If they don't move to use eminent domain, your property is perfectly safe.
Insist that candidates make their views on this matter known, and hold them to it.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."This is true of every government power. The Framer's weren't stupid. The only question either opinion should have addressed is what they meant by public use.
"Question: Is suggesting a revolution a threat?"
Actually it is...any attempt to overthrow the government is considered a threat.
It could get your post deleted
Good points. Time to really get involved in the local races for aldermen, county commission, mayor, etc.
Every one else is a toss-up, depending on who is donating big hunks of money by large donors.
"It is official citizens no long own property, you can only rent it, with the possibility of eviction at anytime."
Did we ever really own our property. I mean, stop paying your property taxes and watch what happens.
No.
OK. I'll admit to being a bit slow here. How does that differ from what we already have. If my state wants to build a highway and needs your land, they buy it and build the road. That's already happening. How is this different?
This is incredibly wrong. What could these justices be thinking??
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.