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.
You must have been reading a different thread. I saw quite a lot of agreement with Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas.
You are right. Some states and localities do not have eminent domain laws. Move there.
"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."
Wow surprising results-- all the conservatives on the court are against the unconstitutional taking of private property- all the liberals are for it...except Sandra..
I still can't understand how people can't see that liberals are evil-- they are on the wrong side of EVERY issue. Someone should send a letter to all these private property owners making them aware of the LIBERALS on the court that ruled against them.
Every heard of the American Revolution? It wasn't exactly popular.
They just stepped over the final line...
You're right. The majority was behind the crown. A minority of the population rose up and took over.
The rights of all men, enumerated in the constitution, are for each and every man regardless of economic might. This ruling tramples the property rights of the powerless.
""Again, I don't like the probable results of this ruling, but that isn't necessarily the SC's fault""
You hit the nail on the head there in my opinion. Read my post above #212. The SC decides on the merits of the law. The liberal democrats have become quite adept at stealing property rights. They made the law in Connecticut and they crafted it with proper legal language.
The solution is to do away with liberal thieving government lawyers, not in bashing the SC.
another oppurtunity for GWB to step up and say something. An issue ALL Americans can relate to. What are the odds he doesn't say a word. Probably 90%
That's the problem. It ruled that it CAN be done. The states are already seizing property, and now the federal gov't just said it's OK for them to do so.
But your idea of backing state constitutional amendments against eminent domain would be one way to fight this ruling. OK, so, that's one viable solution.
So, where do we all start?
Can we put a nice, new mall on Martha's Vineyard? I'm thinkin' of the Kennedy Estate. Heard it has a great view for condos.
"Every heard of the American Revolution? It wasn't exactly popular."
Beautiful waterfront properties and lots in big cities will be tempting to seize, so I guess the prices of these properties will go down.
Would you like to pay full price for a beautiful million-dollar waterfront property? I know I would never do that.
From now on, wise people will want to buy properties that nobody wants. Away from the city. Away from the waterfront. Away from nice views.
Ah, Bloody, one can only hope.
FMCDHs
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.