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.
Sounds fair.....
/sarc
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
I have never seen such a blatant step towards communism in the United States in my lifetime. How much more are we going to take before we take action?
I'm trying to recall that Thomas Jefferson quote about the Tree of Liberty being watered by the Blood of Tyrants.
Yep, afraid so. Basically, we're all screwed. They can take what they want, and we can kiss off.
By the way he is not moving.
So if I enter your house, take your wife's wedding ring, and plunk down on the dresser what I consider to be "fair market value" for that ring, I haven't stolen anything?
Instead, if your worried, buddy upto the enviro's - if you can find some rare or endangered bug, animal, plant, whatever, on your land, you could potentially keep the thieves at bay - I've heard about landowners doing that (there are federal laws about destruction of habitats of certain animals).
(sheesh - we do that in Oregon all the time)
What was the name of that fellow up in the New England area who got really tired of being shoved around by municipal authorities? Something to do with his trying to stave off water erosion on his riverfront land, IIRC. While not fully on-point with regard to eminent domain issues, his story might still be of interest to those in this forum.
We should all chain ourselves to our local City Hall.
Fourth of July is coming up.
And stuff like that might be one of the reasons the term "robber baron" is soooo appropriate.
How does one compute the "fair market value" of a home in a condemned neighborhood?
Who said it would be condemned?
The fair market value would be at current market for an equal house somewhere in an equal type of neighborhood. I am sure the insurance companies can work out a method that would work.
...Get to know the members on your local Zoning Board...
My property could be a potential target of a land grab at some point. Very fast growth out this way. A big Hospital soon to be built will accelerate that growth even further.
The thought of smoozing up to local politics doesn't appeal to me, but that is probably good advice. The newly formed City Council here is a rats nest as far as I can tell. They are always fighting amongst themselves.
They missed me when they drew their boundaries, but those boundaries are sure to change, and they won't be getting smaller. San Antonio might annex me too since I am within spitting distance of the County line. I could even end up split between the two.
I want to hang on to this place for a while and the thought that I could be forced to sell before I'm ready makes me uneasy.
You first. Let me know how effective it is. I'll be waiting . . .
""I'm at the closed end of a five-house cul-de-sac that I'm sure developers would love to buy up and turn into a dozen townhouses (a lot of that going on around here in recent years). Now all they need to do is add a little gimmick to justify it as a "public purpose" and we're outta here.""
Now they don't even need the Gimmick, just need to show that the townhomes will generate more taxes.
Absolutely. Starting around 1913 and forward was the worst of it...really reaching a new low under FDR and continuing downward from there, particularly in the 60's and 70's, again in the 90's...and now.
What will the President say about this? Nothing? How bout Bill Frist or John McCain?
Maybe "Private Property Rights" isn't an issue they care to invest their ""political capital" on? Too busy giving the country away to the illegals.
I hope I'm wrong, we'll see soon enough.
Oh, great! Now, you reminded me that the Statists are willing to kill to get what they want.
I don't give a friggin rip about Natalie Holloway or Aruba. The Constitution is being trampled by the liberal Supreme Court Justices while Gonzolez is busy going after the adult industry instead of enforcing the border. Bush signed CFR & the USSC affirmed that too.
We have no property rights, no 1st amendemt rights to fight it....at least we still have the 2nd.....at least until anotehr Demis elected president...then that will be gone too. I hate what is happening to this country. It is sickening. I wish Americans would mass riot over issues like this like they do in other countries.....but the only thing people here get worked up over is some sporting victory.
We deserve the government we have.
Maybe "Private Property Rights" isn't an issue they care to invest their ""political capital" on? Too busy giving the country away to the illegals.
I hope I'm wrong, we'll see soon enough.
You're not wrong. There are many red herrings to choose from. The Flag issue being the most obvious- to obvuscate.
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.