Posted on 06/26/2005 12:28:12 PM PDT by FreeKeys
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Shocked at a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows cities to raze homes so developers can build private hotels, malls and office parks on the land, state lawmakers called for legislation to ban the practice Friday.
The high court split 5-4 in a Connecticut case Thursday that under the Fifth Amendment, municipalities could take private property for private development because the project in question met a public purpose: creating jobs and revenue.
But in an impassioned dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the court majority had forsaken the middle class and gutted the American principle of individual property rights to further enrich the wealthy.
At least eight states already forbid local governments from using eminent domain to take private property for private development. The high court's majority opinion said states may adopt protections against the practice if they see fit.
In conservative Virginia, the ruling stunned and angered legislative Democrats and Republicans, some of whom began exploring ways to nullify the ruling in the state.
Del. Johnny Joannou was on his way Friday to consult with bill-drafting experts in the General Assembly's Division of Legislative Services about a remedy, possibly a state constitutional amendment.
"I really couldn't believe it," said Joannou, D-Portsmouth, shaking his head as he gazed at printouts of news stories about the decision. "They've ruled that almost anything is a public use now, and that really concerns me. A lot of our rights in this country stem from property rights."
Government always has been empowered to take property for a public purpose under a legal principle known as the power of eminent domain. Governments routinely use the process to condemn and claim land necessary for such uses as roads, schools and parks. Property owners must be paid a fair market value.
Localities also can raze blighted property for the purposes of safety and community improvement. But Thursday's ruling was the first to give local governments the right to convey property from one private owner to another for the purpose of development.
The legislature's two most powerful leaders denounced the ruling.
"I think it was a crummy decision," said House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, an estate lawyer by profession.
"You don't have to be a brilliant lawyer to know the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. It defies logic to say government can take private property for private uses," he said.
Senate President Pro Tem John H. Chichester, R-Stafford, said he was "absolutely appalled" at the ruling. "I certainly hope there will be some bills prefiled, but we have to exercise caution and not do this in haste."
Sen. Benjamin Lambert, a member of the Legislative Black Caucus, said he fears the decision will harm minority homeowners most.
"Through the years, blacks in particular who have owned property have seen eminent domain come in and take it. I am quite sure members of the Black Caucus will get together on this," said Lambert, D-Richmond.
The Virginia Municipal League, an advocacy and lobbying organization for Virginia's cities, worries that the emotion of the issue could lead to legislative overkill, said Mark Flynn, VML's director of legal services.
"It really is important that this issue not get confused with the poster child of someone who just doesn't want to sell," said Flynn, who also lobbies for VML.
He was referring to the New London, Conn., case on which the Supreme Court decision was based. That economically depressed city desperately needed the land for a new, upscale development, and all but a handful of property owners had agreed to sell.
In Virginia, such cases would be extremely rare, Flynn said.
"After the dust settles, I'm sure there will be legislation. But it's been my experience in Virginia that with localities _ even the biggest city, Virginia Beach _ they all absolutely loathe eminent domain like crazy," Flynn said.
One reason is hauling small homeowners into court and using the legal might of government to strip them of their homes creates disastrous public relations and lingering resentments against elected officials.
Another reason is it's cheaper to offer a homeowner a buyout price he can't turn down than to hire lawyers, said Flynn, a lawyer himself.
He said VML won't necessarily oppose legislation to bar local use of eminent domain for private development, "but what we do need to protect for cities is the right to redevelop areas that are in blight or falling into blight."
Flynn also said new legislation needs to account for the growing use of public-private partnerships in which the roads, schools and buildings once the sole province of the public sector are built at government direction for a public use by private investors.
Reason: How is this going to affect lower court decisions in other eminent domain cases, such as the Michigan Supreme Court's reversal of the Poletown decision last year?Scott Bullock: What's important to point out is that even the majority admitted that state courts are free to interpret their own provisions in a manner that's more protective of property rights. Thankfully, every state Constitution has prohibitions against private takings and a requirement that takings be for public use. And, only six states have held that economic development condemnations are Constitutional. Nine have held that they are not. And most states have not addressed it.
-- excerpt from: http://www.reason.com/interviews/bullock.shtml
So the FIRST thing to do is to get your state to strengthen its anti-taking laws and put real TEETH in them, and establish a special fund for district attorneys to investigate and prosecute violations, with arrangements for publicity for high-profile cases. Wuddya think? Better ideas sought here!
Bravo Virginia! I am SO glad I live in a SANE commomweath (that's state to all you other folks...)
Paging the Democrats...
You can't have it both ways.
Now let's see if the Socialist State of New Jersey will do the same ..!!
Excellent! I was afraid I was going to have to use some of my vacation to lobby them.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Morgan Griffith will push it through.
If they've been listening to talk radio at all, they'll pass it :) I know folks who normally AWOL when it comes to anything political, and they are now livid at the thought this could happen to them. A sleeping giant has awakened.
Republican Tom McClintock of California is sponsoring a bill like this. Which means it's probably doomed in the dingbat leftist legislature; the Dems would cut off their arms before they voted for anything major from a Republican. We'll probably end up having to have an initiative to get this passed. I hope we do soon, because the members of the San Diego City Council would give their firstbord children to anyone with a campaign contribution. Selling a developer our property wouldn't give them a second's pause.
Beyond snotty. How dare someone wish to do with their private property what they want?!
John Adams
I expect other states will do the same.
"Now let's see if the Socialist State of New Jersey will do the same ..!!"
No way. No freaking way. NJ is the most densely populated state in the nation, it is also bi-partisanly corrupt to its very core.
I have been living here for 17 years and I am dying to get out. But like the man said "people have tried before".
Clearly we have a long, long way to go to reach true liberty.
Before you know it, folks will want their children to inherit the old homeplace.
"A sleeping giant has awakened."
Yes, this seems to be an accurate decision. They have pleased a small minority and infuriated about 85% of everyone, in every party. They have threatened the foundation of this country. This decision will last about as long a Dred Scott.
My sentiments exactly.
I'm spitting mad over the Supreme Court's decision and I'll be making my phone calls tomorrow.
Mr. Flynn will be hearing from me too. VML's staff page is here: http://www.vml.org/AboutVML/Staff.html
If Va passes this, good for them- next: the other 49 states.
Thanks for the link!
I think local and state officials are getting an earful. As we mentioned, both Libs and Cons are pissed off at this!
As if government monopolies in education, and land entertainment have been so spectacularly successful. I would argue that they have not. Transportation is a more interesting problem, but even in that case there has been massive corruption and corporate welfare. Witness the railroads.
Elections coming up...we won't forget.
The Constitution and bill of rights was, in part, modeled after the Virgina state constitition, and the constitution was written, in larger part, by viriginians, so I am glad to see they can at least 'interpret' it correctly.
http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm
my thoughts.
Petition to impeach justices
http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html
Thanks for saving me the research! Mr. Flynn's bio looks like he wants to go to the General Assembly, doesn't it? His smartalecky little remark just cost him that. People just do not UNDERSTAND the power of the Net.
Yes, this seems to be an accurate decision. They have pleased a small minority and infuriated about 85% of everyone, in every party. They have threatened the foundation of this country.
---
I've talked to a lot of people with vastly varying ideologies about this and every single one is furious. I'd say it's probably 95% total against and 90% of Liberals against. Actually, to see the country thus united brings back some of my faith in the American people, especially the lib voters (not leaders).
President Bush still hasn't said anything about this. Loosing my (remaining) faith in him...
I'm breathing a little easier now. Just hope other states follow suit.
It very likely will. Already, some American communities have embarked on the odious practice of seizing property, both homes and businesses, in these "rundown" neighborhoods so that revenue-producing "upscale" ownership can replace them. This absurd Supreme Court decision gives them carte blanche (pun intended!!!).
"'Through the years, blacks in particular who have owned property have seen eminent domain come in and take it. I am quite sure members of the Black Caucus will get together on this,' said Lambert, D-Richmond."
They will certainly have my support, if they do.
They'll also have my support if they start impeachment proceedings against the five "justices" responsible for this decision. Frankly, it belongs in the same trashdump of history with the Dred Scott Decision.
I certainly hope so. I thought he was comatose.
You are right. I sure haven't and won't forget.
"They'll also have my support if they start impeachment proceedings against the five "justices" responsible for this decision."
I've been waiting to see that word "impeachment" brought up. What would it take?
Exactly my reaction to Cha-ching-chester's comment.
The purpose of this is not to enrich the wealthy corporations, althought that is a result and I'm sure they're delighted. This came about because the govt. wishes to enrich themselves through increased tax revenues.
Does State Law take precedent over Federal Ruling?
And don't forget the mass transit buses we all subsidize while we buy, maintain, pay to park, pay for gas and pay for our own cars while the intercities enjoy their low riding rates and beautiful bus depots. Remember Alaska's pork!
In Roe, states forbade the practice of abortion, so someone who wanted one went the the Supreme Court to rule that state-bans on abortion were unconstitutional.
Now the Supreme Court is ruling that government takings of private property is okay but states can enact tougher legislation? If that's true, why can't states also enact tougher abortion legislation than what's in the Constitution? What's to stop a developer in a state to argue before the Supreme Court that the state's tougher takings ban is unconstitutional in light of last week's ruling?
My brain hurts...
-PJ
does the supreme court care about states' rights?
You mean after they devalue our property. Current talk is that our home loans and appraisals are way over value?
-PJ
So that's the Florida operates. :-)
Political Junkie Too wrote:
My brain hurts.
Wonder what the free market would make of it, over time, if some cities had strict laws against eminent domain, and others did not? I bet the former would thrive and the poor stiffs who couldn't afford anything else would be stuck with the latter.
Would you want to invest in a home that might, at any time, belong to anyone who covets it and can bribe bigger than you can? Reminds me of the old refrain, "I owe my soul to the company store."
Interesting news alright. But I'm concerned about who the players are.
Anything with Cha-Chingchester's name on it is suspect.
Actually, this is the basis for all socialism. It's been going on for years in this country, at an accelerating pace. It's just that always before it was done under the guise of a Robin Hood kind of ideology, taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor". Now it's just taking from whoever the government damn well pleases, and giving to whoever tells them he can make the most money from the seized property. It's a dangerous corner we've turned. This HAS to be reversed.
In my home town, which is Bush Country, property is always assessed at its "highest and best" use, which means if a a high rise would generate more tax revenue, the property is assessed as if a high rise existed.
If you live near commercial delopment, you are in danger of being assessed as commercial.
So much for the old plya and movie, "You Can't Take It With You".
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.