Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes

charlotte.com - AP ^ | Jun. 23, 2005 | HOPE YEN

[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.

[shellshocked]

This ruling doesn't just say Wal-Mart can bribe the local government to bulldoze homes to make for a Wal-Mart. This ruling also says the local government can evict you from your home to make a homeless shelter, low-rent housing, go condo, or any other host of ideas a developer can have, and, believe me, the developers are salivating at this ruling.

want to say no to higher land rents (Read: Property Taxes)? Ha! The local government can evict you and sell the home to someone who doesn't mind the higher tax. How, you ask? Give them a minute, they'll figure out how to accomplish that.

This ruling goes WAY beyond simply allowing for SOME purposes of eviction. It goes all the way to allowing eviction for ANY purpose.

[Rob_DSM]

Yep. There is no way a secession could happen in this country now. We could give 'em some grief and perhaps a compromise could be reached, but it would be impossible to actually secede and take the land with us to form another country. This country, and the U.N. are too powerful and would not allow it.

[followerofchrist]

"I simply was responding to someone who said that the government can now simply steal your property. They cannot."

I still consider it stealing, even if they pay you. They won't give anyone "fair market value" until real estate prices plummet. Therefore they are stealing it because a homeowner can get double when the seller's market is good.
In rural areas, FEMA can take your property in the event of an "emergency."

[Dead Corpse]

Considering the Libertarian stance that ALL Rights are "property" Rights, starting with Self Ownership, then at least one poltical segment of our country is all ready there.

March on Washington? Go for a Million Man March kinda thing? For something like this, I'd take an extended vacation to go protest.

[CherylBower]

I see your point, however, if the developer really wants the land he should pay the premium price for it, not have the gov't come in, and say you will get this amount (in 2 or 3 years). The homeOWNER should negotiate with the developer, or not. Just Compensation does not say FMV. Just Compensation is "You want something. I don't want to sell. Your bid keeps going up until I want to sell." The sale may not take place, but the local gov't should stay out of it.

[followerofchrist]

Truly, fast food restaurants would definately generate more tax income than the personal property taxes paid by the J's on their "private property."

A strip joint and bar can generate more tax revenue than your property taxes can. Make room, people.

[Rob_DSM]

I'm going to Alex in person tonight. He's having a screeing of his newest movie at a local theater, and there will be a Q&A session afterwards. With today's court ruling, there should be some interesting comments after the show! I don't buy into all of his theories, but at least he's on the right side, and I support him for that.

[Happy2BMe]

Slightly off topic, but not really. It all concerns American's rights to own their own property without the fear of government intimidation with the expectation their government will protect them from such things.

What would you do if you were these people living in these houses?

(If the right to own private property is no longer valid, what other rights are the next ones to be removed?)

========================================

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.

* * *

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

[RedMonqey]

You got that right.
We got the highway moved so it didn't split our family's 130 year old+ farm(still lost over fifty acres of prime farmland with highway frontage) and kept TVA from putting a line of 135 ft power lines because we discovered an endangered little plant called the price potato bean plant.
It grew in the back area of our farm that ole Great, great grandfather Andrew thought was too worthless to farm.

Little did he know his actions over one hundred years later, this worthless land kept the government off his descends' land

[Judith_knows]

"The idiocy and evil of this decision are so obvious that even a DUmmie can see it."

I am not a DUer but I am a liberal and read DU frequently. I almost have to choke back tears to think that the liberals tipped the scales in favor of this. And I now have to change my political affiliation.

I can't change what's in my heart, however. I will always hold some liberal views, but I am a conservative in some ways too, number 1 of them being property rights, followed by fiscal conservatism and I'm not in favor of gun control.

I confess part of me thinks this did happen on W's watch, even though it was the liberals who sealed the deal. What this tells me is that neither party is to be trusted. You've got the republicans, who are really controlled by the neoconservatives (I did vote for Reagan, but old school republicans have gone by the wayside. Call me an isolationist who believes in not racking up deficits) and now you have the traitor dems.

Please don't think all liberals/leftists/democrats are dummies. It's mostly the democratic politicians who've messed things up.

[Simplemines]

Get to know the members on your local Zoning Board. If you live in an area that you suspect may be a gleam in some developer's eye...they could be your best friends.


And so, "Some of us are more equal than others." Life follows fiction, once again

Hey, it also helps if you buy a lot of tickets to the next Democrat fundraiser! You always get WAY more attention from the boys in the zoning office when you buy them tickets!

[EdHallick]

Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes

Maybe now the libs will understand why we have a second amendment.

[soundandvision]

I do not want to see and hear trash on the television. Do you understand!?

I'm terribly sorry you feel that way and as the parent of a nearly 2 year old son, I want to shield him from bad programming. But that's the thing, I think it's my responsibility to shield him from the programming, not the Federal Government.

If you like to watch the trash channel, then buy a satellite. As for me and most Americans, we don't want to watch garbage in our homes. I am very glad that FCC harshly punishes TV networks that allow perversity to be aired.

The FCC was originally concocted to regulate the distance and strength of signals in over air communications, I believe. Not as an arbiter of what they deem as 'decent'. Any time the government tells a private citizen or private company how to use their free speech, that's what's known as censorship. Also, as a regular television viewer (of anything, really) you'll note that in the top left hand corner of your television screen at the beginning (and during the duration, sporadically) of programs there's an age appropriate rating listed. Not to mention most televisions made after the mid 1990's have software built in to help you block specific channels at certain times of day, or period. Last but not least, there's always the option of getting rid of your television in general. You don't have to own one.

There is right and wrong. And if you don't know the difference, you will suffer the consequences...

I definitely think I know the difference between right and wrong. I think it's wrong to use the arm of the Federal Government to hold back a segment of the population that I deem 'immoral'. Or to be the practitioner of how private business should create programming. I think that is the ultimate "no, no" to expect the government to tell private citizens how to run their affairs.

We can agree to disagree, that's allowed.

[followerofchrist]

Any attempt of a revolution would be met quickly under the guise of the "Patriot Act." How quick do you think revolutionaries would be classified as "terrorists?"

You said it bud. I oppose the Patriot Act too. It's interesting that republicans generally support it, even knowing the next democrat in office will be able to use it.
Had Clinton implemented it, we would all be up in arms.

The Patriot Act has already been used against one American citizen that I know of, though I don't remember his name. Michael Chertoff brought in about 100 homeland security people to a man's property because he was (actually his wife) in possession of a legal firearm. He had a misdemeanor from another state for beating some guy up, and in that state you can't have a gun if you've been convicted of an assault. The state he moved to allows you to have a gun in his situation. But Chertoff twiddled with the law and threw him in jail while his wife and 11 kids were left to fend for themselves. There were no protests because he is a racist. It's sad how we allow our rights to be violated as long as the people targeted are bad guys, racists and David Koresh types.

[montag813]

Question: If Connecticut passed a law or Amendment prohibiting actions such as involved in this case, would it counteract the SCOTUS ruling?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"Some of us are more equal than others."

Always has been and always will be that way. Unless there is a major change in the basic make-up of the human species.

Sux, but that's the way it is.

[hocndoc]

I think the latest version of bribes comes in the guise of gift certificates to expensive restaurants, in addition to tickets to sports and entertainment events.

I don't think I can keep up with the developers who tried to confiscate my neighbor's land last year.

[Finger Monkey]

Who said it would be condemned?

S.O.P.

[snowsislander]

You have to submit to strip searches to board an airplane.

Actually, I believe that is only for common carriers. If you are flying your own airplane, or one that you own a fractional share of such as NetJets, then I don't believe that you have to do anything more than present identification. Increasingly, you will find that the wealthier are eschewing common carriers and flying on such private services.

Could any freepers who are using such airplane fractional ownership services confirm or correct this? I haven't myself, and my information about their security procedures only comes from looking at NetJets web page on their security, so I could be way off base.

[Roccus]

Every property owner in the country who has a flag sould hang it upside down. It is a demonstration that will NOT go unnoticed.