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.
"1. Back a constitional amendment against eminent domain.
2. Back state constitutional amendments against it.
3. Some in the media on our side.
4. I guess... join with the DUmmies to fight it...? (History in the making here...)"
"If this were the only issue where the government was broken you'd have a point."
One issue at a time.
This ruling is among the best for defining the judges on the court. I don't like the ruling handed down. I can appreciate how it defined the judges involved. The knowledge gained should be used to determine what kind of judges we want when future vacancies occur.
Think you that "revolution" is only a thing of violence?
If only the government was usurping the people's powers and rights one at a time.
"Has Dubya commented yet? How does this ruling jibe with his "ownership society"?"
He'll stutter, look kinda confused, mutter something about having respect for the decision of the courts even when we disagree with them, say "God Bless America" and go back to whatever he was doing before someone bothered him with all this.
For the public good you know!!
Can you say "WAL-MART"?
"Think you that "revolution" is only a thing of violence?"
Good Lord, you are correct. The DU'er are as outraged as we are. This may be an issue were we have to circle the wagons.
Actually that is not true. I think it was David Geffen who just has his property (Malibu beachfront) seized and made into public use.
Of course, a few DUers think it's a conspiracy to make them look bad... lol.
By the way the stockmarket does not seem to like this either, Down 38
Sununu the Elder was a suspect from Day One, for those of us who read Human Events regularly. I'm not so sure about his offspring, either.
As to Bush/Elder: his globaloney falls perfectly in line with the Statism of this decision. I seriously doubt that he is either surprised OR unhappy with it.
Really? Then I stand corrected. Maybe this issue will gain their support, too...
Main Entry: rev·o·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "re-v&-'lü-sh&n
Function: noun
2 a : a sudden, radical, or complete change
b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed
c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation
d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm
e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology
While I may disagree with the reasons posted I agree that Lincoln's actions started the errosion of property rights and created a strong federal govt. The end result is what we have now (or don't have now). I don't beleive there will ever be any attempt to secede or another American revolution as we are like the frog in the frying pan.
Bend over and grab your ankles, the gummint's coming to help you.
#272: Rhode Scolarship sojorn= Rhodes Scholarship sojourn
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.