Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes by gtman8503

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

POSTED BY: GTMAN8503
UPDATED: Friday, June 24, 2005 15:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1153
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:44 PM

The Supreme Court ruled today to expand "Eminent Domain" to include taking private land and giving it to other private organizations to create economic growth. I was just wondering what yall's opinion of this is.

Personally, I find government intervention here disgusting. It's one thing for the government to take your land for direct public use...to build a park or utility or something, but it's an entirely different thing for the government to take your land and give it to some company so that they can develop it and create economic growth. Heck, I have a hard enough time trying to justify the government even taking your land for just public use. I understand that the government reimburses the person for the land, but it still ought to be that person's choice whether or not they want to sell it to the government. This is just land redistribution--plain and simple.

Anyway, here's the AP Article:

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.

The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on Monday.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Connecticut resident Susette Kelo and others in the lawsuit pledged to continue their fight. 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.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."

New London once was a center for 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 including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices 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.
---

Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo in New London, Conn. and Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn. contributed to this report.

CLARIFICATION:

FOR:
Stevens
Kennedy
Souter
Ginsburg
Breyer

AGAINST:
Rehnquist
O'Connor
Scalia
Thomas

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It's ultimate corruption.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 10:14 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Yepper:)

I love it. Can't get enuff of it.

Gonna create more jobs... riiiighhhhtt.....

My wife and I have considered buying a home. Can't afford one here in NY. The housing Bubble is still huge. There's a house next to the apartment building I live in, that the current owner paid $85k for last year almost to the day. It's a nice house. He's selling it now. He put $5k into it, didn't need much work. I was considering making an offer on it. Maybe $100k. No can do. It's up for sale now for $185k.Thats what the realtor says he should ask for it. Talk about corruption and gouging. LOL

I've even heard rumors of 50 Year mortgages. I think I'll keep renting until the bubble bursts.

PS: Look at the political leanings of the Judges that said yes to this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 10:51 AM

CHRISISALL

We are but dustmites to the brooms of the corporate bully.
Constitution? Yeah, I heard stories about that. Legend has it that it was mostly enforced at one time.

Empire strikes back is right Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 12:50 PM

MONTANAGIRL

This is one of the most frightening things I've seen come out of the Supreme Court. I can understand using Eminent Domain in order to build roads or schools, etc. Heck, we lost part of our pasture when they widened the highway near our house, but that was something that needed to be done and was a benefit to everyone. (And we got new fences out of it.

) But to say that the government can TAKE your property from you (I know they compensate you, but that's meaningless when you don't want to sell in the first place), to give to another private individual for BUSINESS purposes is complete and utter bull----! As Adam put it on the OB: "Time to start impeachment proceedings!"

"Man has an evil side, Pinky." -Brain
"Front or back?" -Pinky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 3:39 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

Interesting that it's the "liberal wing" of the Court that support this, and the conservatives that are trying to protect individual rights.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE