Posted on 06/23/2005 12:12:48 PM PDT by truth49
OLYMPIA—The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that local governments can seize private property for private development even when that property is not “put into use for the general public.”
Susette Kelo is a private homeowner in New London, Connecticut. When she and several other neighborhood residents refused to sell their property to the New London Development Corporation, a private developer, the city used its power of eminent domain to condemn the private homes and businesses.
Eminent domain is the legal authority for a governing body to confiscate private property for public use, as outlined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
New London officials announced plans to raze the homes in order to build high-end condominiums, a luxury hotel and several office buildings, arguing that private development serves a public interest in boosting economic growth.
Ed O'Connell, the lawyer for the New London Development Corporation, told The New York Times, "We need to get housing at the upper end, for people like the Pfizer employees."
The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine if the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement offered any protection for individuals like Kelo whose property is being condemned for the sole purpose of private economic development.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court deferred to the city and ruled against Kelo and other property owners. “The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the majority opinion.
“In other words, the Court believes your property belongs to the highest bidder,” said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF). EFF was just one of a diverse group of property rights and individual liberty activists who filed 25 “friend of the court” amicus briefs with the Supreme Court urging the justices to end the abuse of eminent domain.
“This decision is an unacceptable assault on the constitutional right to private property,” said Williams. “It means that no home, church or business is safe if government officials decide they have a better use for the property.”
He continued: “This decision also disenfranchises poor and middle class property owners who can’t afford to defend their homes.”
“Public interest groups like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation and the Institute for Justice will continue to fight for property rights, but citizens must demand that their state legislatures pass laws that ensure that every person’s home is truly his or her castle,” said Williams.
If the legislature does not take steps to protect property rights, Williams warned that “the people must do so themselves at the ballot box.”
Additional Information
Kelo v. City of New London
You may be right, I have not been following this admin's stands on this issue.
On the other hand, I have heard Cheney make some very good comments opposing the "takings" that often occur through various environmental rulings.
In the area of "constitutional law", would such a finding alone uphold federal executive support for a plaintiff against such a taking?
It is time for Bush to go to congress with a simple request that declares to the court from the other two branches of government, with regard to this ruling:
"go ahead, try to enforce it"
Either Congress & or the Executive branch could issue a 'finding' that public takings for private gain are against basic Constitutional principles that protect individual human rights.
They could urge/authorize that the Justice Dept make available public defenders to citizens facing such infringements by state or local authorities who misuse their power.
In the area of "constitutional law", would such a finding alone uphold federal executive support for a plaintiff against such a taking?
Justice Dept support for plaintiffs in such lawsuits would certainly 'tell' local juries that the USSC version of eminent domain law is being contested on a constitutional level.. -- Just as it should be, in our system of checks & balances.
This is sad. Where I live there's no such thing as property rights.
well, "two treatises of government" specifically states the property issue. i always sorta thought a reason there was more fuss about happiness is that the assumption was that coming here, it was understood that the average guy had the right to own property, unlike europe where you had to have some kind of title or moulah to qualify. at any rate, this is a disgusting ruling that makes me sick.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
That's the spirit, mict42. This government is by the People and for the People. And WE THE PEOPLE must stand up against this tryanny. This is exactly the kind of thing our forefathers came to this country to escape. And what about the gigantic door to corruption this opens for politicians in city governments -- already corrupt enough, now they'll be taking payoffs and election money for our private property. God save our country.
Thanks, Guy -- I copied this and am going to send my reps, etc. this letter. However, the senator in California is Barbara Boxer for my area -- little good it will do, but I will send it anyway.
Clarence Thomas also published an 18+ page dissent.
In the special case of Proposition 13 protection in California, seizing the property and selling it to another person at current market value would yield an increase in property tax collections. What would constitute "just compensation" in that case? This is a major league pandora's box.
The 300 homeowners in my area signed a petition to eliminate the "mixed use" designation around our homes. The city allowed my neighbor to raze a home over my back fence and he erected a 4 story commercial building. It was completely against the spirit of the "mixed use" designation. The building is a big sore thumb and the city council and staff were negligent in allowing it to proceed.
At the "land use committee" meeting, the petition was read and multiple homeowners rose to speak. The "committee" members twiddled thumbs, stared at the floor, watch the clock. They totally ignored all the comments. At the end the meeting, the chairman banged his gavel and proclaimed the petition "denied". The property owners directly affected were given the big "screw you" by a bunch of elitist, appointed land use committee members.
Even more egregious: the chairman asked if any members of the committee had any "conflict of interest" before the petition was considered. The wife of the owner of the contruction company that built the 4 story building is a member of the committee. She did not admit a conflict of interest. She also didn't admit that she and her husband made $100,000 on the $1,000,000 expended to build that building. Liars. Corrupt politicians. All this happened before the Supreme Court decision. Now these elitist developers and politicians will feel further emboldened to attack the property owners in my neighborhood for the enrichment of the property developers.
Pitchforks and torches is a primitive response. I'm expecting more serious hardware.
In an article posted in the WSJ OpinionJournal on June 21, 2005 by John Miclethwait & Adrian Wooldridge, "Cheer Up, Conservatives!" (originally from THE RIGHT NATION)The authors give encouragement to Conservatives and toward the end of the article say something that basically summed up for me, what the American Dream is all about, "If the American dream means anything, it means finding a plot of land where you can shape your destiny and raise your children." This truly is the crux of the matter and this is what our forefathers and every other father after them fought for. This is the essence of what makes our country strong and why people from all nations long to come here! You bet this is more uniting that 9/11. This is putting a sword in the heart of every freedom-loving American, be they Republican, Democrat or Independent or any other flavor.
You would love the "land use" committee in my city. They love the concept of "mixed use". In keeping with your desires, your neighbor's house will be razed and replaced with a mini-mart/gas station. Lights will be on all night for safety at the new "stop and rob" facility. You'll save gas, have a store in convenient walking distance and the city will have more revenue. You might never be able to sell your house as a residence again, but you will have the convenience you seek.
I trifle with that comment as the commercial building over my back fence threatens to illuminate the 24 parking spaces and the second through 4th floor occupants enjoy a commanding view of my whole back yard. The original home on the site was a single story redwood house with a pretty green metal roof. I had a view of snow capped mountains and pine/fir trees. Now it is a brick building.
Wrong. The wife of the property developer that built the commercial building behind my home is on the "land use" committee. She can steer "land use" decisions that will favor future construction opportunities for her husband.
My neighbor was on the "land use" committee before a favorable variance was granted to him to raze the residence and build his commercial building. He clearly feather-bedded the ordinances and "land use" plans to further his own long term interests.
The funny thing is that lighting can be shielded. Those motion sensors and timers don't work--when your image is ruined, it is ruined. Any light any time destroys the utility of my yard for that purpose or any other night sky viewing.
Sounds like you have some conflict of interest going on there. That is a serious problem. Fix it.
My condolences on your loss of photographic opportunities as well. I have to drive 6 miles out of town to watch aurora and meteor showers now. Clouds are rarely a problem. Better than San Diego, but still very annoying to lose the access on my own property.
Light pollution is trespass. The local zoning code may address the issue. Ours does, although few take advantage of it. There was a McDonalds that had to put up a noise fence and make custom shields for its lights and filter the stove smoke because they moved into a formerly residential area [zoned general use at the time], and faced all kinds of resistance and demonstrations from the residents. The restaurant would not have made these changes on its own, and was not about to move away. It would be more difficult to constrain a residential neighbor, but commercial interests have some urgency in keeping things moving.
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.