Posted on 06/23/2005 12:19:13 PM PDT by Kimmers
WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday 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 often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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.
The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Among those still pending for the court, which next meets on Monday, is one testing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commands on government property.
Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote.
Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects that benefit the lower and middle class.
They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights. Critics had feared that would allow a small group of homeowners to stymie rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs.
"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote.
O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
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.
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
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.
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.
liberals don't believe in private property....no communist believes in private property...Thats why the dems need libs on the courts..they could never do this and survive an election..so,the liberal courts will do it for them.....
communists don't believe in private property...the dems know they could never do this and survive an election...So, they put libs on the court who do the dirty work for them......Watch all the hand wringing in congress and they won't put through any bills to protect the rights of property owners...They will just keep wringing their hands and say poor poor homeowners
dup thread
Third thread.
The search bar is your friend. This has been posted at least a half dozen times today.
Now eminent domain can be employed for any reason whatsoever. Level a cluster of low-cost homes for a shopping mall? Well, it increases the city's tax base so it can be defined as "the public good."
I used to work for a city government -- they are drooling over the revenue potential. The city (Mesa, AZ) was hammered by the courts a couple of years ago for just this type of set-up. Sickening.
This opens up the door for horrendous abuses to powerless citizens. Books and movies have been made in the past about these types of themes.
Simon Legree is a developer and he basically owns the city council, or board of supervisors. He sees a chance to make a ton of money but a key piece of land he wants belongs to the widow Brown, who has two young children. No problem. He gets his buddies to seize the property and he pays very little for it. The widow Brown is left without her house and land, and Simon Legree and his bought-and-paid-for politicians get wealthier.
Ok Ok sorry this has been re-posted....is it anything like Seinfeld and regifted....if you have already have seen than ignore it...geez
Supremes rule that that private property does not exists. Home owners are merely renting the ground from the state. Think about it when you get ready to sign on the bottom line.
I say don't just complain here but email your house rep and senators and demand a new constitutional amendment so that the 5 idiots on the SC will now know what "Public Use" means in the 5th amendment. Here is the text I used, use or abuse as you see fit
How does this compare to what the English did to the early American colonists?
A sad day in American History.
>....we are losing America<
What do you mean "are losing"? We lost it a long time ago when we erroneously assumed that we defeated communism. All it did was to go underground, change its name to liberalism, and now it raises its ugly head in the house, senate and supreme court. Krushev was wrong when he predicted that communism would bury us. We buried ourselves.
I'm not complaining about re-posting -- the more people that see this, the better!
you are right, we lost America....liberalism the great destroyer...I just sent this article to a liberal friend of mine who is active in preserving green space in the New Jersey area and she is also a lobbyistin DC....I am interested to see what she says about this
Boycott Connecticut
I wonder how they are responding to this over in DU. I know they are no bastion of private property lovers, but they are always saying how the conservatives are corporate nazis that steal from the little people.
This is a nasty kick in the reality. They'll have to spin it in order to make it palatable for themselves, but then again, they are good at that.
It's just not the Libs. It's all a these evil governmental crooks. Every last one of these corrupt pieces of garbage should be tossed out. "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" It's time to listen to Mr. Jefferson. I better not get going anymore. The evil government critters may use the Patriot act and come take me away!
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.