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.
"Hey DUmmies, these are the people you are in favor of. These are the people YOU want on the court."
Actually, I'm sure the DUmmies were originally against Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter's appointments, as all 3 were nominated by supposedly-conservative Republicans. I think both Kennedy and Souter were Reagan nominees.
How much less should we suffer such abuse when the purpose is not for an interstate highway or for some arguably necessary government purpose but for private development schemes which "benefit" the public interest (if any) at all only to the extent that the gummint critters will have more tax money to squander on their re-election schemes while (in many cases) being paid off by the bribes of feeding developers.
Lest I mislead, I have no problem with development but is must be achieved, if at all, the old-fashioned and more expensive way of paying as necessary in a free, arm's length transaction, with current owners. If your development project has greatly enhanced the value of their property, too bad.
There are an awful lot of trendy leftists (Phil Donahue, Marlo Thomas, Paul Newman, et al.) who own coastal and other verrrry desireable property in Connecticut and NEVER join with conservatives otherwise who are going to be VERRRRRY angry at this decision and the fact that it was delivered by the Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer group who are their normal heroes and Anthony Kennedy who made the difference for them on abortion.
Look for a wave of state legislation to restrain this result since Stevens ruled that locals know better than the feds. State governments are local by comparison with Feds.
Can we spell "wedge issue."
It means that they can decide they don't like the color of your house and they believe it would be a "benefit to the community", they could condemn it, tear it down and sell it to a developer for $50.
PING!!!
Sorry, posted to wrong Freeper.
I want a new country.
How do I form a new country?
Actually Souter was nominated by GHWB. Sununu talked Poppy into it because he had no paper trail and could not be slammed like Bork for actually being an intellectual conservative. Bush I was assured that Souter was a conservative, but there was no nagging proof of that in the records.
"Most people will never be affected by an eminent domain proceeding
Now what does that matter? Most northerners weren't affected by slavery either."
"the SCOTUS has now made it "legal" for government to seize your home and sell it to a private individual who promises to pay more TAXES on the land.
"
EXACTLY!!! A BIDDING WAR!!!
If the government wants to increase tax revenue, all they have to do is put your property up for bidding.
This is war against the people, against private property!
The "Gang of Five" strikes again!
Socialist politicians & judges = drug addicted whores & pimps.
Which means: the thought processes of money addicted egomaniacs willing to prostitute their souls as well as destroy the private citizen to satisfy their insatiable hunger for more money and power.
The supreme court does not exploit a hole in the constitution, they have created their own laws. The first instance of judicial activism occured when the supreme court gave themselves the right of judicial review in Marbury vs Madison. Ever since then we have had a rogue court that does whatever it wants. In the past we have just been lucky enough for the justices to have a soul. There decisions and actions have rarely had anything to do with the constitution.
Bastait talks about "legal plunder" by government. Go HERE for a good copy of The Law.
"It is official citizens no long own property, you can only rent it, with the possibility of eviction at anytime."
Another perfect point. At least with land rents, known as property taxes, a person was safe in ownership of their property if they paid their land rents. Now, the Supreme Court jhas added a clause that says a person can be evicted at any time as well.
Belly up to the bar boys...Happy Hour has just started! Pick your parcel and place your donations to the Selectmen in the glass at the end of the bar!
This decision will be noted in the history books as the first shot of the 2nd Revolution.
SCOTUS needs some intelligence there, and Markman, Taylor, Young, or Corrigan will help.
Following the plan, step by step!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428558/posts?page=15#15
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.