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.
Just the Supreme Court taking using a sharp stick to poke at the housing bubble. (sticking fingers in ear in preparation for a loud noise)
Buy ammo.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
That does not sound like we the peeples actually own anything.
I believe that because the peeples never really bitched about these things that it has emboldened the left and has resulted in this horrible, disgusting ruling.
Just watch what happens in the coming months and years in the name of the 'public good'. Property confiscation will start under the pretense of expanding the tax base for the common good.
But it will not stop there. Next, property will be confiscated, stolen, seized by government for enviromental reasons.
Next, it will be for beautification.
Next, well, never underestimate the left in what they can do.
Sorry, but I will stand my ground on my property. If they ever try to seize it, they will have to do so over my dead body. I know I probably will not win, but I will take a few down with me.
"...our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."
Now, legislative judgments that, say, limit partial-birth abortion...those are sacred Constitutional issues, don't ya know, so the hell with your legislative judgments.
People buying a home are taking a tremendous risk, purchasing something that costs more than they will make in the next five years. In order to take that risk, they have to be confident that nothing will happen to that home that will diminish the value. This expanded power of government introduces another level of uncertainty into home ownership. If I spend a Half Million dollars on a house, and the town can sieze the property next door in order to build a strip mall, where does that leave me?
People are going to be less likely to take the risk. Demand will fall, and prices along with them. The strongest leg of the economy has just been removed by judicial fiat.
A disgusting ruling.
Got a link?
This is a fine point to keep in mind. The state (using this as the global term for national, regional, state, county, and local governments) has many, many other options other than eminent domain seizure for acquiring movable property (like cars) and there are plenty of sellers willing to compete in providing those items to the government (often at considerable discounts). Consequently, the seizure of personal property by exercise of eminent domain is a non-issue, since it is: 1) inefficient (it is always inefficient and expensive when courts and lawyers are involved) and 2) government doesn't (or at least shouldn't) really prefer one legal source of a particular item over another as long as the need items are supplied at a fair price.
However, in the case of real property, there is only one source for a specific plot of land and that is purchase from the current owner. When the owner refuses to sell at a fair market value price (either to the developer or the government - are there can be abuses here) and the intended use is deemed by the government to be in the public interest, the owner becomes subject to eminent domain proceedings by the government. The government must go to court and prove to the satisfaction of a (hopefully) impartial judge that the public interest is being served by the seizure and the judge must accept their arguments to rule favorably. The judge's ruling is subject to appeal (in this case, all the way to the Supreme Court). And even if the government is vindicated at the end of all the appeals, it must still pay fair market value for the property (which can lead to another round of court hearings).
In short, eminent domain is a LEGITIMATE government power to be should be carefully invoked only in those cases where it cannot negotiate a reasonable sale with the real property (real estate) owner and the intended use is really "in the public interest."
Having said that, your assumption that I have no problem with the current use of eminent domain by local governments is wide of the mark. If local government officials are personally profiting or receiving campaign donations because of decisions favoring developers, that's criminal corruption and they should be indicted and sent to jail. I don't believe assessments should be manipulated to drive property owners off their land nor should changes in zoning be used to destroy the market value of property. I believe (as I implied in my original posting) that if the state must take a piece of property through eminent domain proceedings, it should pay a penalty for trumping the reluctant owner's property rights by paying triple (or more)over the fair market value for the land. That will force the state to be very judicious as to what property it decides to incorporate into its projects. Finally, I believe you should use the electoral process and the ballot box to punish (or reward) public officials (including judges) to offend the public's wishes about how government power should be exercised. They will be a little less capricious in the exercise of power if they know they will be held accountable by the voters. (Thank you Arnold Schwarzenegger!)).
What a myth that this is ALREADY a conservative court. Puh-leez. This court is clearly as leftist as it gets.
The conservatives are clearly in the minority on this court..surrounded by moderate and pinko lefties.
These people are paid too well and have too many perks.
They have secretarys, and office staffs do all their work and they show up once in a while to vote, They get free trips from lobbyists ,or at our expense they have a restaurant , barber shop, shoe shines, and women groupies, They would kill to keep these perks , is it any wonder they will sell us out for their jobs?
Take a peek at their salaries and their benefits, their retirement and health care. They should be required to go home once in a while and do some real work.
Isn't this exactly why the second amendment was written?
I know if my local municipality wanted to transfer my property to another private entity, they would have to navigate a shower of lead before they could take possession.
If this isn't the time for politicians to develop a modicum of fear, when will it ever be time?
It's already been done, in a reasonable way. Not trying to be argumentative here; it's just hard to see how much more clear the already-existing 5th amendment could be.
I suppose what you are saying is that you want to back an amendment that would disallow all "takings" even in the event of any need for public use. So what if, for example, the nation needed privately-owned large trees (don't laugh; this happened in the pre-revolutionary war days) in order to mast ships to prevent an invasion, and the owners of the trees refused to sell? Should the rest of the nation simply sit by and wait to be invaded?
Sure, that's an extreme example, but the founders were aware of situations in which the survival of the nation, and the avoidance of chains and slavery for all, depended on taking private property. Those situations may come again, so not allowing ANY eminent domain might cause real problems down the line.
The trick is keeping the eminent domain for actual public use only. That's what we used to have judges and courts for.
I guess what I'm saying is that laws, amendments, words, really are not sufficient to maintain liberty. Some layer of responsible people -- once judges, in the future the citizenry, perhaps -- is needed.
The South tried that already. We lost 250,000 men and most of our land was destroyed. And, that was before the U.S. had tanks and other fun toys.
This is a far cry from taking someone's land for the railroad to come through or to build a courthouse. This is taking someone's land and turning it over to a private developer so he can make a profit. It's an outrage.
Heh.
They are not idiots. Like Kennedy, they are Statists.
But the reality of Statism is just beginning to come home to the DUmmies.
Ask the moderate Repubs in the congress how this has worked for them over the last 30 years. Rather ineffective to say the least.
Nor do I! Bush I was well aware of Souter's judicial record but, like "read my lips, no new taxes" he proved us the fool!
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.