Gadsden Flag info
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.
I suggest we find wealthy Republicans and a list of property holdings for the 5 judges who ruled this way (and their relatives) and start seizing ever piece of property they own.
DL/Registration/Insurance checkpoints.
Just yesterday there was one near my house; my wife told me when she got home from town.
I called the County Sherrif, "What is the checkpoint for?" They answer, "What do you want to know for gossip purposes?"
Apparently, they don't have to answer to their employers anymore. Next they tell me to call the troopers. "We don't authorize these."
I call the troopers, "You need to call the county sherrif. WE don't authorize these."
Lots of finger pointing, no answers.
Read it and weep. I found myself on the literal verge of doing so after the reading.
Look, everyone understands why the railroads had to take land -- and why cities have to have land for roads, but this is different. They're taking land from a private citizen and giving it to another private citizen. For the profit of the second citizen.
It's wrong. I don't care how many pockets are lined, it's wrong.
My home is on mangrove - a beautiful area. If my city steals my home so some condo developer can make a big profit, I'll fight to defeat every dem in the country and get rid of every liberal judge. This is an outrage.
Yep, all power should reside with the state, all property is that of the state. They will never get it, they must be defeated at the ballot box. Shooting them wouldn't turn out as well as some of you think. See Civil War, Whiskey Rebellion, John Brown, Treason, etc. I understand the sentiment, but something with a much wider impact would have to happen before an significant number of Americans would rise up and fight for the freedoms so many of us take for granted.
Nobody cares. I'm guessing that the talk radio hive (except Boortz) will be buzzing about flag burning or what mean thing some Democrat said.
Does anyone really think that we shouldn't fight to get conservative judges on the SCOTUS
"Anyone who speaks of secession in this day isnt thinking right. "
Agreed. This is our country and why should we have to run from it? Make those bastard run!!! Tar and feather, folks, tar and feather!
Once again while conservatives attempt to protect individuals from government, liberals assert government rights and power over individuals.
Not only that, but whether you are willing to submit to a background check and/or drug test.
Ad hominem comments only weaken one's position - sort of like an intentional misunderstanding of what was said. Marginalizing doesn't help either.
...This decision has opened the door for unbridled graft and corruption as developers will be looking to grease as many politicians as necessary to get the land that they desire....
No doubt about it.
My point is, and I won't belabor it, it is not stealing. I support private property rights completely. However, this particular point of mine is simply that those who argue without all the facts argue poorly.
Good point. To those who only value wealth, of what importance is a church? Our church property sits on an extremely valuable piece of the gulf coast. A large condo complex would generate tens of thousands of dollars for the city each year. How does that compare with the intangible benefits of a church?
Better not try burning a rainbow flag.
""I'm sorry, but your muster area has been seized for private economic development.""
NUTS
That helped a little bit.
Our very survival, or at least our ability to ward off an horrific train wreck in the very near future is going to depend on who Bush gets onto the court.
The scales must tip the other way very soon.
This ruling is, IMHO, absolutely unconstituional and anti-liberty. But then, tragically, that is not a rare event for the last 30 years either.
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.