Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
charlotte.com - AP ^ | Jun. 23, 2005 | HOPE YEN

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: blackrobetyrants; eminentdomain; fascism; fpuckfpizer; idiotjudges; itistheft; kelo; obeyyourmasters; oligarchy; ourrobedmasters; outrage; pfizer; propertyrights; royaldecree; scotus; supremecourt; theft; totalbs; totalitarian; tyranny; tyrrany; wereallserfsnow; zaq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-728 next last
To: quikdrw

I WANT THE NUCLEAR OPTION.
I don't care what the democrats promise they will not do.


51 posted on 06/23/2005 8:22:16 AM PDT by blueberry12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
Not actually. The law stipulates and it is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights that the owner must be compensated for their loss. Fair market value comes into play but of course sometimes FMV isn't what an owner feels is the true value of the property.

One of the problems is that there is no consistanncy. I know of one area that the local courts have ruled that in order for a governement to sieze private property the ownwer needs to be reimbursed to the tune of 3 times FMV. Obviously there's not a hell of a lot of eminant domaine there. There just has to be some consistancy and regard for personal property rights.

52 posted on 06/23/2005 8:22:20 AM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey
This truly is the beginning of the end of our country.

I am devastated. I am resorting to the girlie art of crying right now.

My country is dead.

53 posted on 06/23/2005 8:22:27 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

The heading should read: SUPREME COURT CANCELS 5TH AMENDMENT


54 posted on 06/23/2005 8:22:30 AM PDT by MNnice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

1 million people have just been evicted from Chicago.


55 posted on 06/23/2005 8:22:57 AM PDT by jaydubya2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
This is treason worthy of death.
56 posted on 06/23/2005 8:23:08 AM PDT by Rytwyng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

Revolution, anyone?
I'm with you.


Where do we muster?
Do we need a permit?


57 posted on 06/23/2005 8:24:06 AM PDT by commonerX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
But how can it be legal to leave people standing on the street with no place to go when they owned their own homes before?

Who decides the value of the home to be destroyed........oh let me guess.......the ones who will gain the most. I wonder how much they are paying the supreme court for this ruling?

58 posted on 06/23/2005 8:24:16 AM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

Time for these fuchs to be elected like everybody else.


59 posted on 06/23/2005 8:24:27 AM PDT by funkywbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

What has happened to private property rights? Individual rights are being steadily eroded in this country. If you have no property rights, what's left? You can't express your religious beliefs in public. You have to submit to strip searches to board an airplane. Your opportunities for employment are contingent upon whether or not you qualify as a member of a "protected class." Every day, more and more of this cr-p courtesy of some court.

Bush is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. Maybe he should be spending more time trying to restore it here.


60 posted on 06/23/2005 8:24:52 AM PDT by WestSylvanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

Nice to know that the Constitution is official toilet paper. Federal "rights" trump all State rights and private property is a convinience not a God given right. How frigging nice. China has this level of private property protection. We are heading down hill to meet the chinese.


61 posted on 06/23/2005 8:24:52 AM PDT by jb6 ( Free Haghai Sophia! Crusade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Nice to know that the Constitution is official toilet paper. Federal "rights" trump all State rights and private property is a convenience not a God given right. How frigging nice. China has this level of private property protection. We are heading down hill to meet the chinese.
62 posted on 06/23/2005 8:25:01 AM PDT by jb6 ( Free Haghai Sophia! Crusade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

WARNING

Stop posting threats now!


63 posted on 06/23/2005 8:25:02 AM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skimbell

Do you think the socialists realize that THEIR constitutents are most likely to be harmed by this?


64 posted on 06/23/2005 8:25:10 AM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey
It means us landowners are only SERFS paying rent on property owned by the ruling classes and their government puppets. When they decide to kick us off our own land, they can legally do so.

How true, that is just around the corner.

65 posted on 06/23/2005 8:25:17 AM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ron in Acreage
The media are polling themselves as we speak, to decide which side to take. The powerful over the people? They will side with the stormtroopers in robes.

Yep, I'd be surprised if the MSM sided against this USSC decision. Just take a look at the judges who dissented: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas.

Not to mention that the ruling benefits the MSM's big corporations.

66 posted on 06/23/2005 8:25:23 AM PDT by Tired of Taxes (News junkie here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: skimbell
This is about the government taking your property to give to another privat individual, not about the government taking your property (with appropriate compensation) to build roads.
67 posted on 06/23/2005 8:26:03 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee

It would take a lot more then this to drive the American soccor mom sheeple to revolution: like another scandal in Gitmo (the stuff that really "matters").


68 posted on 06/23/2005 8:26:05 AM PDT by jb6 ( Free Haghai Sophia! Crusade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
I have my own case pending in Conn. Appellate Court on eminent domain, where I argued the position of the dissent in the underlying State case.

Whether its the Trade Center Memorial, illegals, the peoples' "backbone" on terrorism, the leftist agenda in the public schools- the elites truly are out of step with the people and the Constitution.

Consider, that a woman who lost her husband at the WTC had a debate with Toffel yesterday on Fox, and afterward off camera, in the most heinous act of condescension befitting Schiavo, Toffel said to her, "Nice try".

That remark epitomizes the arrogance of the elites- and in my view- a day of reckoning is coming. No not a revolution, but more and more organizations like the Minutemen.
69 posted on 06/23/2005 8:26:40 AM PDT by sirthomasthemore (I go to my execution as the King's humble servant, but God's first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee
Revolution, anyone?

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

I prefer a revolution in dance. B-)

Dead serious, I know here in Pittsburgh, we have had several cases of corporations using emminent domain laws to grab land from homeowners and small shopkeepers from time to time and all of this just opens the doors to this stuff. I have no more respect for the justice system anymore.
70 posted on 06/23/2005 8:27:04 AM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

I promise not only to never go to New London, I will never visit the state of Connecticut. To hell with the money grubbers!


71 posted on 06/23/2005 8:27:14 AM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

Lets organize the "free republic economic group." What we need to do is home in on wealthy liberals' homes and build offices. We can generate tax revenue for cities by selling property rights apparral.


72 posted on 06/23/2005 8:27:40 AM PDT by followerofchrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Question: Is suggesting a revolution a threat?


73 posted on 06/23/2005 8:27:56 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DSDan

He's talking about Walmart strip malls.


74 posted on 06/23/2005 8:28:41 AM PDT by jb6 ( Free Haghai Sophia! Crusade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee

That's "private."


75 posted on 06/23/2005 8:28:47 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: jb6
It would take a lot more then this to drive the American soccor mom sheeple to revolution

Start taking their homes and see what happens.

This was a dangerous decision because wars have started for less than this.

76 posted on 06/23/2005 8:29:57 AM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: conservativewasp

The revolution was fought over a low 10% tax and the housing of British soldiers. Hardly a comparison to our present "enlightened" tax system and the land grabbing bastards that rule us serfs.


77 posted on 06/23/2005 8:30:28 AM PDT by jb6 ( Free Haghai Sophia! Crusade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee

Vote the bastRATs out to oblivion! This is not a threat, this is wakeup call!


78 posted on 06/23/2005 8:31:23 AM PDT by Leo Carpathian (FReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: jess35
wars have started for less than this.

Wars have started for this reason exactly.

79 posted on 06/23/2005 8:31:27 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jb6

It is official citizens no long own property, you can only rent it, with the possibility of eviction at anytime.


80 posted on 06/23/2005 8:31:36 AM PDT by commonerX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes

What back page will the Post and Times hide this decision by their liberal dictators? Hitler would be proud.


81 posted on 06/23/2005 8:32:03 AM PDT by Ron in Acreage (It's the borders stupid! "ALLEN IN 08")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

This is a very sad day in American history.


82 posted on 06/23/2005 8:32:10 AM PDT by politicalwit (USA...A Nation of Selective Law Enforcement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Absolutely unbelievable. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!! How is it possible to reconcile this decision with American history. This ruling is a watershed. Say you want a revolution? There should be rioting in the streets.....but we would have to divert our attention from the Micheal Jackson trial.
83 posted on 06/23/2005 8:32:25 AM PDT by reflecting (I'm reading what all of you are saying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee
Revolution, anyone?

Uh, well, we tried that about 145 years ago and the damn yankees burned us out and stole our land.

They ought to call this the "Sherman Law".

84 posted on 06/23/2005 8:33:16 AM PDT by cowboyway (My heroes have always been cowboys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

What are their home addresses? I have a feeling that those would be good spots to open some McDs and BKs. If they don't want to move, they can man the drive-thrus.
85 posted on 06/23/2005 8:34:03 AM PDT by jaykay (The following statement is true: The preceding statement was false.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: followerofchrist

I propose to take Kennedy and sKerry properties and build shopping malls for people. Watch for "rule of law". They would not allow freakin windmill in the sight!! Welcome to US-SR!


86 posted on 06/23/2005 8:34:12 AM PDT by Leo Carpathian (FReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: reflecting

I agree, a riot would be an appropriate reaction.


87 posted on 06/23/2005 8:35:02 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: jess35

And a hundred years ago there would be open rebellion and another civil war. Today? Hardly. Our neutered society will protest and bitch and a few will stand and fight and the statist media will portray them as nothing but fanatics and hound them until they are seen as public enemy number one: followed by calls for more gun bans.


88 posted on 06/23/2005 8:35:37 AM PDT by jb6 ( Free Haghai Sophia! Crusade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee
I know that.

I simply was responding to someone who said that the government can now simply steal your property. They cannot. The use of eminent domain has been corrupted and I think that this is a moronic ruling but the fact remains that even though the government has been given a big + is seizing your property, they still cannot simply steal it.

89 posted on 06/23/2005 8:36:08 AM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee

So, when do we leave?
This would be a great Freeper rallying point. These residents might need help when the bulldozers arrive!


90 posted on 06/23/2005 8:36:09 AM PDT by mark3681
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Are insults OK?
Ruth Bader Vader Ginsberg: doesn't she look like that homely chicken with the egg-head son Foghorn Leghorn was always mooching off?
And Souter, GHWB's appointment: what a *dis*appointment!
Kennedy, again citing Martian condemnation law.

These birds can make-up constitutional rights out of whole cloth, but apparently can't read the following:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05

So much for the notion of "private property".


91 posted on 06/23/2005 8:36:31 AM PDT by tumblindice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: commonerX

And on top of that, you now know what your citizenship is worth: $7,000 fine for illegals filing after crossing illegally. Yup, isn't life grand?


92 posted on 06/23/2005 8:36:37 AM PDT by jb6 ( Free Haghai Sophia! Crusade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

The Union fought the War of Northern Aggression so that they could take away States Rights and Property Rights, Why is anyone surprised?


93 posted on 06/23/2005 8:37:11 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Do these people own (or now rent) real estate?

94 posted on 06/23/2005 8:37:24 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee
We will not let the government take our land to give to another.

They will take my land when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.........or is that guns.....uh, either way.

I will fight to the death.

Are you with me?

I am with you to the death. Plus, any reason to buy more guns.

95 posted on 06/23/2005 8:37:47 AM PDT by cowboyway (My heroes have always been cowboys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee

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?"


96 posted on 06/23/2005 8:37:49 AM PDT by politicalwit (USA...A Nation of Selective Law Enforcement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: commonerX

I am not advocating violence, but if someone invades your home, like a thief, you can shoot them. No?


97 posted on 06/23/2005 8:37:50 AM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
That's damn wrong.

Folks, make sure you know who your city council, mayor's, township supervisors, township boards, and planning commission's buddies are. Your home may depend on it.

98 posted on 06/23/2005 8:37:56 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan (Defeat Stabenow in 06!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

Does anyone know what the property rights are in Canada?

Moving across the boarder may be better then it seemed before if they have better property rights.

I was going to get a home equity loan, but not sure now, hell it not my property.


99 posted on 06/23/2005 8:38:17 AM PDT by commonerX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

Not if it's the Government or someone appointed by the government.


100 posted on 06/23/2005 8:39:28 AM PDT by commonerX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-728 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson