Posted on 07/30/2004 4:49:43 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Michigan Supreme Court strikes down 1981 Poletown decision
By DAVID EGGERT
The Associated Press
7/30/2004, 7:30 p.m. ET
DETROIT (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday redefined the power of Michigan governments to take property for development projects, overruling a landmark 1981 decision and barring Wayne County from acquiring land for a 1,300-acre project near Detroit Metropolitan Airport.
On the court's final day of its term, all seven justices agreed that the earlier precedent should be overturned, though they differed on the reasons and whether the decision should be applied retroactively.
Justice Robert Young, who wrote the lead opinion, called the 1981 case allowing Detroit's Poletown neighborhood to be cleared for a General Motors Corp. plant a "radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles."
"We overrule Poletown," Young wrote, "in order to vindicate our Constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law."
Young said the case presented a clash between two fundamental legal principles: individuals' right to control their private property and government's authority to condemn property for public use.
The court heard arguments in April about an effort by Wayne County to acquire land for a planned 1,300-acre industrial and commercial project near Detroit Metropolitan Airport. The case drew the attention of Michigan communities as well as advocacy groups from across the country.
The county in 2001 sued landowners who refused to sell property for its Pinnacle Aeropark project in Romulus and Huron Township. Lower courts sided with the county, which argued that it had the right to buy the remaining land — about 2 percent of the project site — under Michigan law and the Poletown precedent.
But the defendants argued that the 1981 Poletown case was flawed. They said the state constitution limits governments to use eminent domain in instances where the land will have a public use.
"This is a towering decision by a very bright court," attorney Alan Ackerman, who represents the landowners, said Friday of the Supreme Court's ruling. "The day of unlimited governmental power to acquire property may be over."
Good news!
Hope Washington State will take note...People here are kiced off their property for squirrel haibtat. Mitigation ratio is 15 to 1. IE The government must take 15 acres of land for "mitifation" for every one acre it uses, which causes a lot of the land grabbing.
ooops, please make that mitigation
This is an excellent turn of events for property owners in Michigan.
Michiganers - make sure you keep your current Supreme Court as long as you can; it seems they understand something about property rights and eminent domain.
Great news!
Thanks for posting this when you did. It's a great way to end the week.
Do you know anything about this court? Are they ever this conservative, or are they typically leftists?
I ask because I'm wondering if this decision may be a reaction to the movement in the House of Reps to pass some legislation to curb the powers of the judiciary. If they are typically lefties, it may be a sign that the legislature has struck a nerve and they are trying to quell that legislative movement.
Finally, a state supreme court decision to celebrate.
This is a great day for private property owners.
Can any Michiganders tell us if this court is always this strong? What beautiful words to see in a majority opinion!
There are 4 top level judges(Markman, Taylor, Young, Corrigan), two bigtime leftists(Kelly and Cavanaugh), and 1 "O'Connor" type(Weaver).
Markman is up for election this year and we need him back. Kelly is up and needs to be ousted.
Excellent! Virginia, where I practice, does not allow eminent domain for the benefit of private companies. I don't usually have any eminent domain cases but had one where the county mistakenly allowed a telcom to run a line over private property, and argued that it was on an old right of way - it wasn't.
The telcom lawyer thought my client and I were obstructionists. My client and I thought the telcom might have bribed someone in the county office.
Anyway, while researching it, I became absolutely appalled at the number of states which allow the state to take your property by force and then give it or sell it to another private owner. It's outrageous.
Michigan's supreme court is the most conservative supreme court in Michigan?
WOW! I damned near fell out of my chair. All seven justices too.
I'd like to see any of those four I mentioned get a call from POTUS.
CB, do you know if Virginia inacted legislation to specifically prevent abuse, or if it simply hasn't happened?
Sorry if that sounds like a stupid question, but I'm doing a little research to see which states have reformed their ED laws and how. I understand efforts are underway in NY and Arizona to curb abuse. I'd love to see such an effort undertaken in Texas, where "Private Purpose" ED is beginning to spread.
Me too. I expect Bob Young, Markman and the other two to be with us, and maybe Weaver, but even Cavanaugh and Kelly were on board for some reason.
Property Rights bump.
Share this thread with anyone else who's watching Freeport with a nervous eye.
It was never unlimited.
The government always has to establish that the taking is for a "public use".
The question is: "What is and what isn't a 'public use'?"
In that case, the court held:
Neither in our Constitution, nor in the constitutions of other States of the Union, is there any express provision forbidding the Legislature to pass laws whereby the private property of one citizen may be taken and transferred to another for his private use. As has been well said by Green, J., in Varner v. Martin, 21 West. Va. 548: “It was doubtless regarded as unnecessary to insert such a provision in the Constitution or bill of rights, as the exercise of such an arbitrary power of transferring by legislation the property of one person to another, without his consent, was contrary to the fundamental principles of every republican government; and in a republican government neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial department can possess unlimited power.” In that case it is further said that there is an entire concurrence of all the authorities in the proposition, that private property cannot be taken for private use, either with or without compensation.
Fallsburg, &c. Co. v. Alexander, 101 Va. 98, 101-102, 43 S.E. 194, ___ (1902)
If the government has the power to take private property from one individual and give it to another individual it deems more deserving - that's as close to unlimited as you can get!
I thought this might interest 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.