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.
I would like to add one more reason. If we can restrain our rhetoric on this issue, we are likely to be joined by many affluent liberals. It is a rare issue on which moderation of rhetoric is a practical tactic. The threats posted are highly unlikely to be carried out BUT verrrrry likely to be repeated elsewhere and held against us.
This additional reason is unnecessary (since you guys make the rules and we post here on condition of obeying them) but may be found desirable. If I am butting in where I don't belong, I will shut up on additional reasons but this issue has "wedge issue" written all over it.
Step 1.
Don't become a government employee, and stop buying government bonds.
I was over "there", one of them even claimed that this is a Rove plot to make the Conservatives look good and the socialists look bad. LOL What a bunch of ignorant, immature dolts.
My guess is that we're all going to sit at our keyboards typing about it. And the revolution will end with this thread and a few follow-ups. We're all too busy working and raising families.
Or, is there something that can be done? What would be the best action to take to fight this decision? Maybe just make sure the media gives it attention, which will hopefully affect the next election...
Not just the socialists, bub.
While the government has been trampling on our rights, I seem to recall our leadership futzing around with such vital, important issues as Terry Schiavo, Gay Marriage and Flag Burning.
Both sides think we're fools---and treat us like children.
Even if one could get fair market value, where does one get the money needed to buy a new property, which in all likelihood will be much more expensive. Where do the lower middle class and working poor go once their "blighted" property has been taken?
The Supremes are trying to flush the Constitution right down the toilet. Tell your congressman they have to be brought under control.
Those steps are long complete.
The Left's "Progressives" = Big Government power + Big money to be made by those in power = Your screwed
I'm stunned by this ruling. I can't fathom how anyone who can actually read the U.S. Constitution and understand its intent could rule this way. Oh, that's right, the Constitution doesn't matter to some on the Supreme Court. They're too busy checking international law and reading goat entrails or something. We really need to start a movement to remove the "Justices" who would rule the way they just ruled. They are a threat to the Republic and an enemy to the Constitution.
The case in question comes from New London, Connecticut. A nice bluecity in a blue state. Libs tend to be pretty good at crafting law to take away property rights, which I have seen first hand here in the florida Keys, where 90% of the property is owned by government or private "conservation" agencies.
The developer of the property to be condemned is Corcoran Jennison, they donated $500,000 to the DNC for their convention in 2004. And much more to individual Democrat politicians.
I am outraged by this as well, but this is my two cents worth.
Comments welcome.
That's what's so great about our system...when the supreme court does something we like, they're great...but when they do something we don't like, they're not!!
LOL! Things are really changing in this country....
okey dokey.
I fail to see how the SCOTUS can justify this given constitutional provisions against the government "taking" private property without compensation.
Are these New London home owners going to be compensated for the loss of their homes? They should be compensated not on the appraised value of the current home, but on the value of the land to the developer.
"Or, is there something that can be done? What would be the best action to take to fight this decision?"
Of course there is something that can be done. In California, for example, the people can create a constitutional amendment by referendum. All that's needed is a prohibition on eminent domain proceedings to benefit private interests.
Same with our national government. If the Congress would step up and put the energy they've put into an amendment to ban flag desecration, for pete's sake, into such a prohibition, that would be the end of it.
What's needed is legislative activism, not some half-cocked talk of revolution. The SCOTUS has NOT said that such eminent domain MUST be done. It has only said that it CAN be done.
Local, regional, and state laws can prohibit such use of eminent domain with complete freedom.
There's what can be done.
Hey, he's my relative!
I'm sorry, but your muster area has been seized for private economic development.
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.