Posted on 06/24/2005 11:13:50 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Your home or business can be taken by force by local officials for virtually any reason, thanks to a long-awaited but misguided decision by a split Supreme Court on Thursday.
The 5-4 vote in Kelo v. the City of New London (Conn.) was not the type of decision that garnered widespread public attention, given that it dealt with a seemingly arcane piece of law. The question raised by the court was whether governments can use eminent domain to take land by force in order to promote economic development.
But the case is not arcane, and the ruling will literally change what it means to own property in this country. In Kelo, the justices obliterated the commonly held view of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Many Americans who don't even know what eminent domain means will certainly feel its sting, as governments have been given a carte blanche to take property, thus transferring even more land-use decisions from property owners to the government.
The Fifth Amendment states that individuals cannot "be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
The key issue in the Kelo case was the question of public use. Traditionally, governments have been able to use eminent domain to build genuinely public projects such as roads, bridges, schools, prisons and courthouses. That was what the founders had in mind when they drafted the amendment.
In 1954, however, the Supreme Court decided in Berman v. Parker that eminent domain could also be used for blight removal. The case revolved around efforts by the District of Columbia to use eminent domain to clear away a slum area. Since then, localities have become aggressively creative in their definition of blight.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
In my town, commercial developers own local government. This ruling gives them the power, through the abuse of emminent domain, to force anyone to sell their property to them. It brings back the good old days of the railroad robber barons who got rich from corruption. The SCOTUS appears only concerned with protecting criminals and pornographers, while working, tax paying citizens continue to get plundered.
I also dropped a note to Pfizer. I asked them if they really wanted those houses. I'm a comsumer after all.....
Soon, property owners will be classified as domestic terrorists, at this rate.
Public abuse , surely , judicial abuse , Absolutely .. .. ..
Kansas City, Kansas is a really depressed city. A couple of years ago the government in Wyandotte County used eminent domain to condemn and purchase property for the building of the Kansas Speedway. That has led to retail development all around the speedway, shopping and dining and entertainment that wasn't available to the residents of Kansas City before. Municipal sales tax receipts have gone through the roof resulting in better services and double digit personal property tax cuts for everyone in the county, and I hope that everyone can agree that tax cuts are in the public good. And all this was done because the local government was able to decide that it was in the public interest to condemn and purchase a dozen or so homes and then sell that land to the speedway developer. Why shouldn't the local office holders, who are accountable to the electorate, be able to make that decision rather than the U.S. Supreme Court, who are not?
It is still up to the community how they want to whack retirees' homes and put in bikepaths. Find some right-of-way agents and talk with them, they know this stuff. There was one posted earlier today, listen to them.
At this rate, the Supreme Court just might strip them of citizenship so they would be foreign terrorists.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Connecticut courts, in effect saying that what constitutes a right to keep and bear arms is a question for the states themselves to decide. Why is that a bad thing?
The four liberal judges and one "moderate" judge have thrown down the gauntlet on President Bush's ownership society. The decision is one of liberalism. These judges could care less about the middle clas, hard working American who does his best to maintain his own home. There is no "just" compensation forthcoming. It's legalized robbery by local officials and those whose grease their palms. These five judges voted their politics, in my opinion. Bush has put forth the issue of ownership, so the judges have done their part to put a stop to it.
It's unfortunate and upsetting, but the fact is that this is not the first situation of its kind. I can't recall the case name right now, but when I get home I'll check out my Property Law textbook and find a case that upheld the forced sale of private property for private use. The standard is not what most people assume (that properties obtained by the exercise of eminent domain must be turned into public property, such as a highway or a park) but rather that the intended use must benefit the public. That's a pretty big umbrella, as lots of private enterprises benefit the public. I'm not saying I agree with what happened here, but the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the laws in terms of their constitutionality, not to create new laws.
One of the side effects of this ruling is to condemn neighborhoods years in advance. When the rumor goes out that a city "may" build a freeway or shopping center in place of some poor neighborhood all incentive for the residents to make improvements goes out the window.
The benefits of urban renewal in a booming housing market will be denied to the very class of people Liberals claim to protect. Why bother to make repairs and mow the lawn if your neighborhood is going to be seized by the government anyway? This ruling smells of institutionalized graft all the way.
Good going US Supreme Court, Robert Mugabe is very proud of you 5 f**kwits. (I spare O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist.. of course :) )
"At this rate, the Supreme Court just might strip them of citizenship so they would be foreign terrorists."
At least as foreign terrorists, we'd have some rights-that would be an elevation in status.
So why is it a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing. The greater good is served by removing the threat of bloodshed as a consequence of the state stealing property at the point of a gun.
It's the new paradigm, states not only have powers they have rights, individuals have neither rights nor powers. Cool stuff.
How did the Judges vote? Anyone have names and the votes they cast?
Because when governments can re-define words in a way that makes Bill Clinton look like Noah Webster, the rule of law is effectively abolished.
Neat trick they buy up property at low prices then redevelop the property into high value commercial property. So why shouldn't the original property owners receive the value of that land for its new use rather than for its original use? Why shouldn't the previous owners of the property be able to negotiate a swap for an override on the developed property in exchange for the title to the land?
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.