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
Actually there is some question where private property comes from in the first place.
would be ironic if the government took my home for a public park, leaving me virtually homeless, yet I couldn't live in the park.
I was just thinking of going to the DU to see what the reaction was. I just knew that they would be outraged too.
This is going to make the Democrats look like fools when they filibuster Bush's conservative court nominations. I see a Scalia, Chief Justice in the future.
I have half a notion to email Harry Reid and taunt him.
It appears totally ineffective, now.
Where does it come from, Rightwhale?
In 1776, this would have created a riot. Boston would be burning right now.
In 2005, not only is there no riot, the liberal elite in Boston is probably saying "Quite right, too".
Regards, Ivan
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
What are they saying in England?
Judge. Rope. Tree.
Some assembly required.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Frankly this case hasn't made it to the news here.
Regards, Ivan
I was really looking forward to buying my first home this year. Now I'm not so sure.
If I ever left England, I would choose between America and Australia. Australia just shifted a touch more in favour.
Regards, Ivan
"I was lurking at the DUmp, and they are as outraged as us. This goes beyond party lines and is ahuge issue. In translation on freerepublic agreeing with DUmp:"
Yeah, me too. I read that SD O'Connor was the only Supreme that showed descent on this issue. Now you post that the DUmmies are also outraged.
This day in 2005 I find myself agreeing with SD O' and the DU. Holy Cow, am I a liberal now? Where's my bottle cyanide capsules?
I know the feeling, I signed up recently (multi-year lurker) but have come down on the same side as "the wrong side" on this and another big issue ... I keep looking for dark clouds above.
The "real" in real estate means royal. (Spanish from real or royal, and Latin regalis, regal). In other words real estate belongs to the king. Those who doubt that can try not paying their taxes (rent) and see who owns it.
I suddenly feel much worse, thanks. :)
The author highlighted the wrong word. It's not the public, it's the use.
Is the land being seized for public use or public interest? Can anyone use the office buildings and luxury hotel the way they can use a freeway exit?
-PJ
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.