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.
The only portion of your post which true, is that the Government can condem private property.
Having participated in this process many times, I can assure you that most, if not all, agencies bend over backwards to avoid under appraising the value of the private property.
...you say you on the far left fear corporate power and most here can somewhat appreciate some of that arguement--especially in the cases of Enron, Worldcom and other corporate scandals.
But while some corporate fear is justified, it is in no way as terrifying as big government fear--after all, corporations can be summoned to courts by the trial lawyers and judges your side so appreciates; while government, unless it agrees, cannot!
For others on the DU side, yes, FR does attract a few extremists who believe a gun barrel settles every disagreement but examine your side of the coin and you'll find more of similiar ilk (hate, it seems, can attract all kinds, "Tantaene animis caelestibus irae? (are there such vilent passions in celestial minds?--from Virgil)"
This decision is completely against all that is right with America and continues the downfall of American ideals and freedoms.
Any private developer can now petition the city and attempt to implement condemnation proceedings using the only excuse available of economic development through jobs and tax revenue. Again the root of all evil is money.
The only positive, and I am stretching here, is that the court has ruled that the city has a wide range of power here. Not only can they abuse it, but they can also positively utilize it. For example, Wichita, Kansas has never, if memory serves correctly, condemned a neighborhood for development. In fact, they are actively against this sort of practice and choose to apply their power in favor of the owners. Choosing a city and being aware of their city policies has never been more important.
There should be some legislation passed that requires a developer to prove that the land he is attempting to purchase is the only piece available for this type development. All avenues should be exhausted before the city takes land from an unwilling owner. Even after this has been accomplished' my personal belief is "too bad so sad" for the developer, but at least this prevents the blatant abuses I fear will ensue from this erroneous decision made by our highest court.
I have been involved in two condemnation cases in this town in the capacity of an appraiser for the city. Both were for highway improvements. Both property owners were over compensated, but I still respect their right to keep it. Unfortunately, their only argument was strictly about the value.
BUMP!!!
vilent = violent
The next time our congress grants the right of the FCC to dictate what goes on over the public airwaves, without setting guidelines and just arbitrarily fining broadcasters for whatever they deem inappropriate.
As a young adult I've grown more and more outraged with each encroachment on our liberties granted by GOD -- not by a group of men in suits. I know it's hard for some to stomach because decisions like the upping of FCC fines are considered 'greater good' enticements. But remember, it's encroaching on others liberties.
Also, as with here in central Ohio when an unruly mob passes a levy stating that private business owners can't allow their patrons to smoke...for the 'greater good'.
Your antenna should go up EVERY TIME this crap happens..not just selectively.
spell button at bottom of reply window = spell check
Right, but after the debacles with some of Bush's appointments going sour, It was Sunnunu's idea to appoint Souter. Souter had never said much, so the Dems wouldn't be able to smear him. Sunnunu went around washington telling everyone "Don't worry, I know this guy, he's once of us". He was wrong.
Once again while conservatives attempt to protect individuals from government, liberals assert government rights and power over individuals.
This article leaves out a big essential and so do the comments thus far.
Maybe this has been said, but they do have to PAY for it, and pay fair market value. It is not seizure in the sense of theft. In the same vein, eminent domain is a seizure but the state has to pay for the property, and for your attorney to prove the value of that property, and for the appraiser, etc. etc.
Eminent domain is a great field. Everybody gets paid.
No disagreement from me. It was good to see O'Conner join them for once, and to voice a strong denouncement of the majority decision.
Constitutional Amendment discussion here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1429070/posts?page=2
Is this why I have been in the Military for the last 41 years, supporting this supreme court decision. Doesn't seem like this is anything to be fighting for. Protecting people that can take away your property whenever they feel like it.
Isn't there somewhere in the constitution that gives you the right to protect your home and family? Thouhgt so, but maybe not, and if there is, they will take that right away soon.
You aren't thinking clearly. That is a BAD idea, blatantly unConstitutional, and only comes close to what the Supremes did today.
They are TAKING your property. Not for PUBLIC use. But for PRIVATE use. That the public may benefit somewhere down the road is irrelevant.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I am very worried what the supremes will do to the rest of the fifth!
They have been taking money, cars, planes etc. from people for years under the drug laws, but none complained because they were stealing from evil people.
Your remark had to be removed.
But it is what everybody is thinking from FR to DU.
Yup, it will be open season in California on all those mostly elderly people living on under appraised, undertaxed, pre Prop 13, "goldmine" properties.
I'll bet there are scads of county clerks scouring the property tax rolls as we speak.
Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. That is like putting up plywood to cover a hole in breached armor plate.
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.