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.
Nah, they are Democrats of convenience. I am not a Democrat, but if they want my opinion it would be that Democrats of convenience are ruining the Party. Same for Republicans. Equal opportunity in this country.
You are SO right BerthaDee!!!!! Someone needs to create a " To Call, To Write, list of names and numbers"!!!!! I think we are ready to act!
It does own you, or at least your property.
You just THINK you own your home or condo. Stop paying the lords of the manor their yearly tribute for a couple of years and you'll find out who really owns it.
Where is Wat Tyler when you really need him?
Bump to the quotes!
It's a closer match now I believe, than in the 70s...A scary thought. The polarization then crescendoed up through the 1840s and went balistic in the 50s...and nowadays the polarization keeps growing and growing and growing.
Will there be a straw that breaks the camel's back?
We need the troops fighting for our freedom here! I'd love to hear Lou Dobbs take on this.. also what does W think of this?
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1574059&mesg_id=1574059
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1575546&mesg_id=1575546
DU, of all places, doesn't like the ruling.
I sure as heck will not go down without a fight.
Perfect. Are you renting it out for a tagline?
This ruling by the Supreme Court is unfortunately just another example of many of the U.S. Constitution taking a back seat to the opinions of some judicial activists in black robes.
This was an issue that was adrressed awhile back by a number of concerned elected representatives, including Rep. Tom Delay R-Teaxs. Of course we all know what happened after he expressed those concerns.
Of course I'm all for free enterprise, but I'm also for a strict intrepetation of the U.S. Constitution. When the founding fathers mentioned "Public Use' They meant for it to mean roads, bridges and schools. They did not mean for it to mean economic reasons. Clearly the U.S. Supreme Court blew it big time on this one.
Whether anybody likes it being said or not our judicial system is way out of control and needs to be reigned in. It's my hope that our elected will recognize the ramfications that this will have on a lot of the many samll communities and think about this when they consider what they're going to do when the next Suprem Court vacancy happens and most likely it will happen sooner than later.
I would also hope that our elected officials will think better and recognize the value of samll bussineses in their own communtities and stand up to defense of private property rights of those small businesses that are the backbone of a lot of small communities in America. Without those small businesses, many of those communities simply wouldn't exist.
Regards....
I've got to admit that I don't get the opportunity to listen to Boortz as much as I'd like, but what I have heard of him would lead me to concur with your comment.
Wouldn't that be just too sweet!
And completely ignores any attempt to change it despite your assertion.
Rule of lawmakers is fine - it's rule of judges that's wrong. Lawmaker are supposed to make laws. Not judges. I'm sick to death about these jerks on the SC making it possible to steal a citizens' land. I'm ready to fight them - unelect the liberals, get conservative judges, etc. I'm just not ready for a revolution. We can win playing by the rules.
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.