Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

Washington Post ^ | 6/23/05 | William Branigin

[Pessimist]

The Supreme Court today effectively expanded the right of local governments to seize private property under eminent domain, ruling that people's homes and businesses -- even those not considered blighted -- can be taken against their will for private development if the seizure serves a broadly defined "public use."

In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the ability of New London, Conn., to seize people's homes to make way for an office, residential and retail complex supporting a new $300 million research facility of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company. The city had argued that the project served a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it would increase tax revenues, create jobs and improve the local economy.

[Pessimist]

This is not your father's United States

[TXBSAFH]

The supreme court just ended property rights in this country, we own nothing.

[sportutegrl]

How old is that fossil Stevens. Think he can survive to 2008?

[inkling]

Dissenting were justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as well as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Dubya, we need some more conservative justices when the time comes. Don't let us down!

[EricT.]

I should have known that that wasn't the Post's original headline.

[scott7278]

Private ownership is gone with the wind.

[putupjob]

Have great fear folks. It's the same gang of five.

Let me explain this to you in simple terms: you own a piece of property that you wish to keep in your family since you inherited it from your ancestors. As a matter of circumstance that property is now surrounded by massive development and is skyrocketing in commercial value and will continue to do so indefinitely. You wish to keep it as a family asset for future generations. The socialists have mandated that the government can seize your property and give to the forces of preferable choice.

This is a major setback to private property rights.

[kittymyrib]

I'm sure this will mean that the proposed wind farm, providing crucial alternative energy, can go ahead now on Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard. Let's see them condemn the Kennedy and Kerry properties for "the greater good." After all, this is the good old USA, where everyone is treated equally under the law, right? I'd hate to think it was only so politicians could get campaign donations from the Pfizers and Walmarts of this world as they evict widows from their ancestral homes.

[CSM]

Stevens added that "because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment."

He was joined in that view by justices Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Dissenting were justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as well as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

---

We no longer have any semblence of "private property". When the government can take property for their whims, we have no freedom! I hope the Freepers celebrating smoking bans in private business' step up to celebrate this decision!

[San Jacinto]

......THE LA-A-A-A-A-N-D OF THE FREE-E-E-E-E-E AND THE HO-O-O-O-M-E OF THE............

[Brilliant]

They ought to simply reverse all the decisions made by the Supreme Court in the last 45 years.

[siunevada]

The city had argued that the project served a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it would increase tax revenues

Increasing tax revenue is right there in the Constitution, isn't it? One of the foundational principles of the country? Lemme look, I'm sure it's gotta be in there somewhere.

Well, maybe we should just rely on International Law instead. Or whatever the justices are in the mood for today.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Well, I always wanted to die here anyway.

[muawiyah]

Most of my "ancestral property" consists of public parks, national monuments, or the bottom of the Ohio River these days.

We frequently make visits to the better parts, and the public does a fine job of maintaining it.

Thanks everybody, and thank you; your tax dollars at work!

[San Jacinto]

...serfs....

[Huck]

This is not your father's United States

More like his:

[CSM]

"Increasing tax revenue is right there in the Constitution, isn't it? One of the foundational principles of the country?"

Thanks for pointing this out. Such irony! The original authors of the constitution revolted against onerous taxation, now the new authors (of the living constitution) want to create onerous taxation.

[AdamSelene235]

TYRANTS!!

[Brilliant]

We are getting to the point where it may become necessary for the other branches of government to simply ignore the Supreme Court when it comes to Constitutional issues. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives them the final say on interpreting the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison lasted for almost 200 years, but is now obsolete, and should be rejected by the other branches of government.

[bobhoskins]

The Supreme Court today effectively expanded the right of local governments to seize private property under eminent domain, ruling that people's homes and businesses -- even those not considered blighted -- can be taken against their will for private development if the seizure serves a broadly defined "public use."

Congress might overturn a 5-4 ruling allowing flag burning this year ... let's see if they have the guts to overturn a 5-4 ruling for something that's an actual problem, without a doubt harm's individual rights, and IS in direct opposition to the intent of the Constitution.

I'd hold my breath, but I have a family that depends on me.