Posted on 06/23/2005 8:07:27 AM PDT by Stew Padasso
Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
HOPE YEN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.
Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
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.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of 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.
The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development 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.
Disappointing.
The fair market value of your car is 20 thousand dollars.
I see you driving it and like it--a lot--so I follow you and tell you I want to buy it. I offer you 20K.
You say `No'.
I say, `I'm taking it anyway. If you won't sign, I'll get a court Order.'
If I understand you, apparently neither of you have a problem with a private developer doing just that to the homeowners here, because it's "not stealing" and we can just vote out the offenders.
I don't understand how this is covered by the Fifth Amendment. Unless any American citizen will be entitled to occupy and use that property, subject only to rules which are applicable to everyone regarding its use, then it's being seized for private use.
Exactly. The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting.
"So, this is something you would not fight for? Just let the government take your property to give to another? How indoctrinated are you?"
Take my property? Try pay me for my property, instead. Nobody's taking property without compensation. You're confused.
When I bought my hope, such things were part of my decision of which home to buy. The location I chose is simply not going to be on the list of any property that anyone will be interested in, except as single family residences.
This talk of revolution over this issue is just plain stupid. It's not going to happen. Most people will never be affected by an eminent domain proceeding. How, then, are you proposing to get those people to join you?
As I said earlier, the place to prevent eminent domain proceedings is locally. Make it an issue locally. Revolution is not in play here, and calls for it are poorly considered.
"Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440
"The first foundations of the social compact would be broken up were we definitely to refuse to its members the protection of their persons and property while in their lawful pursuits." --Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1812. ME 13:145
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." --John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can." --Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the "Father of the American Revolution."
"[A]ll power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution." --James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend on God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die." --George Washington (1732-1799) Founding Father, 1st US President, 'Father of the Country'
How is this different? Well, the SCOTUS has now made it "legal" for government to seize your home and sell it to a private individual who promises to pay more TAXES on the land.
"Insisting" that local officials make their views known, and then holding them to it is like answering "yes" to the question "Will you respect me in the morning?".
Sounds good up front, feels good up front, but, then comes the morning.
"Insisting" that local officials make their views known, and then holding them to it is like answering "yes" to the question "Will you respect me in the morning?".
Sounds good up front, feels good up front, but, then comes the morning.
Because they've debased the currency, your money is no longer good enough.
Now the guvmint wants your real assets.
Looks like a shooting war is on the way.
The guvmint buildings in DC would make great condos.
BUMP
Because it doesnt have to be for the public good (ala a highway etc.), it could now just be a shopping center which will provide better tax revenue for the socialists in government.
"Does that mean that my county may seize my proerty if they want to erect a hotel in place of my house? "
Yes.
Siezure of property by the governent simply to increase tax revenue is not a legitimate reason.
Well, I bet there are some pretty nice waterfront locations on Long Island and Marth's Vineyard that would make lovely resort hotels that would bring in lots of tax dollars.
""Did we ever really own our property. I mean, stop paying your property taxes and watch what happens.""
I've said that same thing before, but this is just blantant disregard for the avarage citizens rights.
Big time developers now have the ability to take you house.
"but what a bunch of liberal scumbags that voted for this."
Actually, 3 of the 5 who voted for it were appointed by Republicans. Only Breyer and Ginsburg were Clinton appointees. Souter, Kennedy, and Stevens were all Republican nominees.
How do I form my own city? hummmmm.
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.