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.
Denver is also slowly turning into such a place.
Don't blame SCOTUS alone for this! This case began with the elected executives and legislators of New London stealing property. SCOTUS merely colludes with them.
Our problem is much bigger than judicial tyranny at this point. It is executive PLUS legislative PLUS judicial tyranny.
I am reminded of the 1850s, when things were escalating...
bump
I actually spent 3 hours surfing between Hannity and Medved. Hannity mentioned it at the top and talked about it for the first segment of his second hour. That's the same amount of time he devoted to that Aruba girl. Of course, the rest of the show was devoted to ..... Mean Things Democrats Say About Us. He is beyond parody.
Medved didn't touch it. He worships the all powerful state, so I'd guess he's not troubled by the ruling.
At this point, "conservative" talk radio has a lot more to do with selling adjustable beds than it does conservative principles. That's just sad.
And NEAL BOORTZ, who has ALWAYS lambasted city governments for this kind of crap.
Bump for later read....
Thank you for your correct view on how to be an activist and take back our country.
May I paraphrase what you said:
All politics are local. Take over the local government and you control the politics.
It will drive them up. They can force owners of $200K houses to sell to people who will build $500K houses. Tax revenues go up. Everyone is happy as clams.
"Revolution, anyone?"
It may be coming faster than anyone thinks.
Yeah. I think today my house officially became a "compound". ;)
I am sure there have to be a few more out there like me.
Probably -- but they most likely won't. It's elected Connecticut lawmakers (specifically in New London, but probably with support of the governor and the state legislature) who fought in favor of this all the way to SCOTUS.
The place to start with this absolute BS is with our local and state elected officials who have no concept of property rights. The crap judges are secondary in this case.
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.