Posted on 09/29/2004 12:11:55 AM PDT by Stonedog
High court to decide when cities can seize private land Case involves town's plan to raze homes, businesses for riverfront hotel By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide when local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will to make way for projects like shopping malls and hotel complexes that produce more tax revenue.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide when local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will to make way for projects like shopping malls and hotel complexes that produce more tax revenue.
The court already has given governments broad power to take private property through eminent domain, provided the owner is given "just compensation." These situations often involve blighted neighborhoods.
But in recent years, more cities and towns have been accused of abusing their authority, razing nicer homes to make way for parking lots for casinos and other tax-producing businesses.
"If you own a home, if you own a small business, this could directly affect you," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the landowners.
In agreeing to hear a Connecticut case early next year, justices will revisit an issue they last dealt with 20 years ago. The court unanimously ruled then that Hawaii could take land from owners of large properties and resell it to others, and determined that such decisions were best left to elected leaders.
In the latest case, Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to bulldoze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to budge, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property.
The neighborhood includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses, some owned by several generations of families. New London, a town of less than 26,000, had been losing residents and jobs when its government planned the land takeover, city leaders said.
The Fifth Amendment allows governments to take private property for "public use."
The appeal turns on whether "public use" includes seizures not only to revitalize slums or build new roads or schools, but to raze unblighted homes and businesses to bring in more money for a town.
The case is Kelo v. City of New London, 04-108.
Looks like an important case regarding private property rights. Let's hope the Court comes down on the correct side.
This is exactly what the 2nd Amendment is there for.
Sweet! We get to form a militia. I knew i was keeping that arsenal for a reason.
For a road or a utility right away, land seizer is ok. But to take people lands to (1) give peoples homes to another private party so (2) a city can get more revenue is totally unacceptable. This is an abuse of government authority.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
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 offense 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.
Call me crazy, but the fourth amendment relates seizures of property only to criminal proceedings with probable cause--and bans taking property, house, effects, etc, for other reasons.
The fifth seems to associate private property being taken for public use with criminal proceedings as well. Wouldn't it be right to assume that since the Constitution is a document that limits the government, that any authority not specifically granted to the government doesn't exist? And if that is the case, shouldn't the government's "right" to seize property be clearly stated as its own amendment? Are there any Constitutional scholars that can tell me what I'm missing?
I recall when Houston used eminent domain to force the landowners around the then-proposed Enron/Minute Maid field to sell out at their "blighted" value so they could sell it to their cronies to reap the improved property values when the stadium was completed. Most got the shaft, with the exception of Hakeem Olajuwan who owned a small hotel nearby, and a clever owner of a Latino taxi-dance hall.
The dance hall owner had the insight to advertise his property (half a city block across the street from the stadium) for sale in the Wall Street Journal. Having established the *true* market value in this manner, the city would have been compelled to properly compensate the owner for the 'takings'. Oops. Evil plan foiled, the city backed off, and as far as I know the dance hall is still there today.
....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It seems weird that this slam-dunk, no-brainer made it all the way to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the Court has been inclined to dismiss the pesky Constitution lately, so who knows what those sick animals might do in this case.
Possesion is 0/10 of the law!
This reminds me of the old Delbert McLinton tune "Standin on Shaky Ground"
Wouldn't "public use" refer to things like public parks, public buildings, etc--things owned by the government, set aside for public use. How did anyone ever conceive of a mall as "public use"? Your quote makes their objective clear--raising tax revenue. Sounds like fightin' words to me.
If the court decides that it is OK to sieze private property so government can get higher tax revenue, then it is all over. Time is up.
Ping.
A case to keep an eye on.
The Fifth Amendment addresses that which ANY government can take. "Public use" by the Federal government ONLY is pursuant to the restrictions on what the Federal government may purchase and own per Article I, Section 8:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over (the District of Columbia), and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; —
The Tenth Amendment allows the States and local government broader latitude in what constitutes legitimate public use, subject to the Article IV restrictions mandating the States to a Repbublican form of government.
I don't understand. Was I right or wrong? Sounds like "public use" isn't quite shopping malls or other private enterprises that will generate higher tax revenue.
Correct. I was just pointing out the protocol. When the Federal Highway system was built, IIRC the States had to acquire the land.
I appreciate your follow up and insight.
The point is that the Constitution protects individual rights from both the State and Federal governments and also limits Federal powers over State and local governments. The states have more powers to govern individuals than the feds. That's why the Congress uses Federal grants to coerce the States into complying with Federal whims.
BTTT!!!!!!!
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.