Some Homeowners Vow To Stay Despite Ruling Against Them - But few options seem available

TheDay ^

[JCEccles]

Legal immigration, to the extent it is skewing demographics in a politically damaging fashion, has been and will likely remain a problem for large metropolitan and coastal areas (blue states). By the time the legal immigrants sift out into states such as mine they tend to have become far more conservative in their political outlook.

[Feiny]

You can also join The Castle Coalition or the Insitute for Justice.
http://www.castlecoalition.org/
http://ij.org/

[Smartass]

ANOTHER PITIFUL LIBERAL RULING - WELCOME TO RUSSIA

---

(Slip Opinion)OCTOBER TERM, 2004

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

KELO ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT

No. 04–108. Argued February 22, 2005—Decided June 23, 2005

After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from will- ing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the "public use" restriction in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties, but denying relief as to others. Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding all of the proposed takings.

Held: The city's proposed disposition of petitioners' property qualifies as a "public use" within the meaning of the Takings Clause. Pp. 6–20. (a) Though the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals," ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land—at least not in its entirety—to use by the general public, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the . . . public." Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public pur- pose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158–164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U. S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986. Pp. 6–13.

(b) The city's determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, includ- ing, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan's comprehensive char- acter, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the lim- ited scope of this Court's review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings chal- lenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13.

(c) Petitioners' proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is sup- ported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic develop- ment is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U. S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners' argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a "reasonable certainty" that the ex- pected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would repre- sent an even greater departure from the Court's precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested par- ties' legal rights to be established before new construction can com- mence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U. S., at 26. Pp. 13–20. 268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a con- curring opinion. O'CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

 

[backhoe]

These are not good days for America or Americans... you are probably aware that I've been linking stuff about the rogue Supremes since the "international law and concensus of opinion" fiasco here:

Men(ace) in Black? SCOTUS goes Rogue...

Of course, CFR was the warning shot... no, make that "Death Knell" on the Constitution.

[BykrBayb]

Bump

[baltoga]

Considering 99 other homeowners took the money tells me these 7 took a gamble and lost.

[baltoga]

Interesting search engine.

[GoldCountryRedneck]

"The Second Amendment"...They are working on that also.

43,000+ local, state, and Fed laws, statutes, restrictions on the books... their work is almost DONE!

[Smartass]

In their opinion, if you'll notice, The Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution from "public use" to "public pur-pose":

In part, from the posted slip opinion: "Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public pur-pose."

Fifth Amendment tol the U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [emphasis added]

 

[Smartass]

 

[AZamericonnie]

"public pur-pose."

Thank you for directing me to this.

[SAMWolf]

It was a home, Cristofaro said, that his father had lovingly surrounded with fruit trees, grapevines, yews and rhododendrons.
Today it is a parking lot.

They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot.

[Age of Reason]

You haven't got a clue.

[devolve]

	THEY   ARE   HERE

[af_vet_rr]

Considering 99 other homeowners took the money tells me these 7 took a gamble and lost.

Even if it was 990 other homeowners, I would still support these seven.

As far as taking a gamble - this is their Constitutional right - they shouldn't have to "gamble" with their Constitutional rights.

If your willing to just roll over and submit, that's fine. Many of us (Lord knows not enough) are not of that nature.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Do we get a refund on all of the inheritance taxes we pay each time desirable lake front or ocean front properties pass from one family member to another?

Or ,should we expect to continue to hand over huge amounts of money for the luxury of keeping up the government's property?

The Supreme court has sent chills down my spine.

[weegee]

The secret is to plan rare weeds on your land. Even the civic association can't get you to cut them down.

[muir_redwoods]

I will never spend a penny in New London again. I urge everyone to make the same commitment. If there is any justice in this land none of the businesses that open on this stolen land will ever prosper.

[Dante3]

bttt

[Calpernia]

>>>Does this ruling render my mortgage null and void?

>>>Do we get a refund on all of the inheritance taxes we pay each time desirable lake front or ocean front properties pass from one family member to another?

Well, how do we do this? In light of this ruling I think these are viable come backs.

Can we homeowners to a class action about these issues?