Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
charlotte.com - AP ^ | Jun. 23, 2005 | HOPE YEN

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: blackrobetyrants; eminentdomain; fascism; fpuckfpizer; idiotjudges; itistheft; kelo; obeyyourmasters; oligarchy; ourrobedmasters; outrage; pfizer; propertyrights; royaldecree; scotus; supremecourt; theft; totalbs; totalitarian; tyranny; tyrrany; wereallserfsnow; zaq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 721-728 next last

1 posted on 06/23/2005 8:07:27 AM PDT by Stew Padasso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Welcome to the USSA




At least I can burn a flag when they take my property
2 posted on 06/23/2005 8:08:35 AM PDT by TheOtherOne (I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

Does that mean that my county may seize my proerty if they want to erect a hotel in place of my house?

I tell you, if nothing will drive house prices down, then this law will.


3 posted on 06/23/2005 8:09:53 AM PDT by blueberry12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso; cowboyway; teenyelliott; carolinacrazy; pissant; thag; Dashing Dasher
Devastating. Demoralizing. Despicable. Un-American. I am beside myself.

Revolution, anyone?

4 posted on 06/23/2005 8:09:55 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Stew Padasso

Unbelievable. I generally don't like to resort to name-calling, but what a bunch of liberal scumbags that voted for this.


6 posted on 06/23/2005 8:10:23 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

It's funny how cities need land on lakes and other naturally beautiful spots. It would be called theft if our society was more honest...


7 posted on 06/23/2005 8:11:23 AM PDT by GOPJ (Deep Throat(s) -- top level FBI officials playing cub reporters for suckers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomakaze

I think it's starting to become less awkward. Soon, maybe soon.


8 posted on 06/23/2005 8:11:55 AM PDT by boofus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

Chairman Mao's General Store coming to you back door...

time for some of these clowns at the Supremes to retire or die...


9 posted on 06/23/2005 8:12:02 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ
It is theft.

We need to revolt.

10 posted on 06/23/2005 8:12:05 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso

Homeowners, arm yourselves. You're just one developer's idea away from losing your greatest investment now. And a simple bribe to a corrupt judge will put most of those nails in your coffin.


11 posted on 06/23/2005 8:12:22 AM PDT by theDentist (The Dems have put all their eggs in one basket-case: Howard "Belltower" Dean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12
Does that mean that my county may seize my property if they want to erect a hotel in place of my house?

Yes, and if you live on a beautiful piece of property that would cost the city too much to buy, they just steal it from you. It's time for conservative judges.

12 posted on 06/23/2005 8:13:17 AM PDT by GOPJ (Deep Throat(s) -- top level FBI officials playing cub reporters for suckers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee

I'm willing to join you.

I see Kennedy is taking legal advice from overseas again, this time from Zimbabwe and Mugabe.


13 posted on 06/23/2005 8:13:28 AM PDT by RedMonqey (Keep RIGHT or get LEFT behind!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
The thing that adds insult to injury is the fact that the main reason cities are seeking to bulldoze residential property is the fact that a lot of unused industrial property is too risky to develop due to potential CERCLA liability.

-Eric

14 posted on 06/23/2005 8:13:30 AM PDT by E Rocc (If God is watching us, we can at least try to be entertaining)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee
Holy Cow....

In CA, they are stealing property to give it to Environmental Groups.

This is absurd!
15 posted on 06/23/2005 8:13:45 AM PDT by Dashing Dasher (June 23, 1868 Christopher Latham Sholes received a patent for his "Type-Writer.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee
Revolution, anyone?

I'm with you.

16 posted on 06/23/2005 8:14:01 AM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BerthaDee

Just about time, Claire.


17 posted on 06/23/2005 8:14:13 AM PDT by lodwick (Integrity has no need of rules. Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

That's exactly what Janice Rogers Brown just called it in a recent dissenting opinion and that is precisely the reason the socialist democrats didn't want her near an appeals court.


18 posted on 06/23/2005 8:14:18 AM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
WOW! I wonder if this means my city can now bulldoze "little Mexico" to put in pig farm? This would greatly increase the tax value of the land, and greatly reduce police, fire, and social services costs.
19 posted on 06/23/2005 8:14:34 AM PDT by joshhiggins (The only good muslim is a bad muslim, and vice versa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueberry12
"Does that mean that my county may seize my proerty if they want to erect a hotel in place of my house?"

That is precisely what it means.

20 posted on 06/23/2005 8:14:34 AM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 721-728 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson