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.
eminent domain for profit...
Ever get the feeling history is repeating itself?
Some people on this forum will trash you for being liberal (though you don't sound very liberal to me), but what you have just said is the truth. I happen to lean towards the conservative side, but I think we can both agree that the Democrats and the Republicans are both leading us down this tyrannical path. The lemmings can fight over who is better, the Democrats or the Republicans, but we know better--they're both corrupt.
Federal, State, local.
Bug the excrement out of them. Perhaps they will hear and be afraid for their positions, since, apparently, it is all they really care about (with, sadly, very few exceptions).
Scream people. Scream until they hear you..
And then scream a little more, just to be sure they really hear you. To be sure they understand.
Scream coherently (or hell, not, I don't, at this point, really think it matters), scream with the facts.
Where I live, it's not likely that Wal-Mart will benefit from this. No, it will be upscale developers who'll tear down single-family homes and replace them with pricey townhouses or condos, light retail, and a few "low income" units (i.e., $150,000 for a studio apartment) to give it the required "public purpose."
I agree with you that there is a limit to how much we can take, but I think the limit is much further off than you or I would like. The population of this country is very different from the way it was during our country's formation. Most of us have always lived under socialism, and this is the only thing we have ever known. That true American mindset has long since been diluted. If we had the same mix of people here today as we did over 200 years ago, the revolution would have already occurred, but we don't unfortunately.
As upset as we may be, we can't do it alone. Things will be really bad before there's enough angry people to cause some real change.
Not all people will face this. I certainly won't either, but that is not the point.
More and more, I think Seattle's future will greatly resemble San Francisco; we are being transformed from a city of mostly single-family houses into a super-congested metropolis of condos, apartments, and townhouses, managed by an arrogant, one-party government that acts like it owns you.
Kennedy and Souter were appointed by Reagan and Bush (41), respectively, so we can thank both parties for this.
:)
Indeed it is.
Here's what Claire Wolfe said:
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. But most people are still standing around numb and confused, knowing something's wrong with the country, but hoping it isn't quite as bad as they're beginning to suspect it is."
Let the Washington crap weasels beware.
Yep. Rule 308 indeed.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
There was some hack from Business Week on Fox saying that this decision is "good capitalism." We need to keep a running list of these jokers.
We're protected in state, but not federal court. I think the prof is half right. He SHOULD be right, but you never know how the feds handle juristiction.
Men(ace) in Black? SCOTUS goes Rogue...
various FR links & stories | 03-03-05 | the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1354913/posts
I am predicting this will lead to violence. That's all I will say.
If the legislative branch doesn't fix this, and fast, we're going to see an answer to my question.
They have only themselves to thank.
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.