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.
First, he who has nothing to say gets personal. Second, it is still not theft, which is defined as a taking without compensation. Third, I am a lawyer.
"Not everyone in this country is smart enough or rich enough to go blithely hiring lawyers. I believe that there will be elderly folks out there will get one of these notices, particularly those living on family farms that don't generate much tax money compared to a Super China-Mart, and some of them will have their land taken for pennies on the dollar."
First, why add 'blithely' to your post if not to marginalize the statements made? Second, and my post remains the same, THEY WILL GET PAID SO IT IS NOT A THEFT.
Third, are you saying that there are landowners in this country who cannot take care of or think for themselves? That does not sound conservative to me.
I invite you to reread my original post. So - because I am lobbying for the use of correct terminology and understanding of the law as it is, I am a facist. Conservatives cannot afford to be illogical and ad hominem. Perhaps that accounts for the situation.
"Bush is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. Maybe he should be spending more time trying to restore it here."
Actually, this is democracy in action which is precisely why we aren't a democracy. Democracy is just a step to socialism, then the move to fascism is pretty quick.
"Yours the site, yours the rules as it should be."
This decision says otherwise. Since the 1st is now the only ammendment the USSC is valid, anyone could run roughshod over the site "owner's" rules and they no longer have the ownership rights to quash the free speech of the offenders.
Very sad indeed!
"...even though the government has been given a big + is seizing your property, they still cannot simply steal it."
If a land-owner receives one penny less than they deem their lands worth, or if they are forced to sell the land they intended to never sell, that is theft. If I grab your wallet and only take half the cash, it is still theft.
Think that would get a Constitutional Amendment rolling?
No. It isn't. "We the People" are sovereign. We don't HAVE rulers. We have Representatives who are supposed to ensure that those Rights are protected, while doing those occasional things that only a large government body can do. Like fight a war or protect our borders. The first job of ANY elected official is to protect their constituents Rights. Period. End of story. It mentions it in EVERY oath of office. Lawmakers are only supposed to make such laws as are in their narrowly defined sphere of influence that "We the People" ceded to them.
Judges don't have any such power. They can only say that something follows the Constitution, or it doesn't. Period. End of story. They HAVE NO POWER to re-write the Constitution or alter its explicit meaning. Period. End of story.
If they can't figure that out, then they can be removed from office via one means or another. Including our Second Amendment option.
Will it take them loading home or gun owners on box cars before you are ready? How many more of our remaining Rights are you ready to give up to avoid restoring our Republic? I take it your frog pot at a boil feels like a hot-tub to you?
What other enumerated rights are the State's capable of rescinding? Allowing enumerated rights to be "interpreted" by anyone is as Conservative as allowing an athiest to interpret the Bible for the purpose of influencing church doctrin.
The authors of every ammendment chose each word purposefully and with the full intent of the meaning of that word. Strict adherence to the language of the constitution is Conservative, interpretation is nothing but destruction of the greatest document ever authored by man.
Great line! No, I'm not in favor of judges making laws. I am in favor of our duly elected representatives making law. It's why we elect them. And as far as the nutty SC liberal judges are concerned, I want them replaced. Replaced by conservative judges. And it will happen - as long as we keep electing conservative Presidents and conservative representatives.
Republicans can't undo 40 years of liberal control overnight. It takes time. But the people are with us and it's happening. I believe in this country as much as you do, but I believe in following the laws as they are until we can change them. It's fair play and it's what Lincoln spoke about in his speeches. He was asked if a person had to follow a bad law and he said "yes", but they had an obligation to change that law. He went on to explain that in countries where a bad law could not be changed, the situation was different.
I don't believe in revolution - not when the only reason for it would be that "my side didn't win". The liberals won this one -- but IMHO it will be a short lived victory.
I believe the people will keep electing Republicans and we'll be able to reverse this ruling.
If we can't, they the other side is making better arguments. Here's my bottom line: you either trust the people or you don't. And I do. I trust the people to make the best choice.
Great line! No, I'm not in favor of judges making laws. I am in favor of our duly elected representatives making law. It's why we elect them. And as far as the nutty SC liberal judges are concerned, I want them replaced. Replaced by conservative judges. And it will happen - as long as we keep electing conservative Presidents and conservative representatives.
Republicans can't undo 40 years of liberal control overnight. It takes time. But the people are with us and it's happening. I believe in this country as much as you do, but I believe in following the laws as they are until we can change them. It's fair play and it's what Lincoln spoke about in his speeches. He was asked if a person had to follow a bad law and he said "yes", but they had an obligation to change that law. He went on to explain that in countries where a bad law could not be changed, the situation was different.
I don't believe in revolution - not when the only reason for it would be that "my side didn't win". The liberals won this one -- but IMHO it will be a short lived victory.
I believe the people will keep electing Republicans and we'll be able to reverse this ruling.
If we can't, they the other side is making better arguments. Here's my bottom line: you either trust the people or you don't. And I do. I trust the people to make the best choice.
"This decision marks the beginning of the end of the concept of 'private property',.."
Nope, the beginning of the end was marked with the WOsD and smoking bans. This decision marks the very end.
BTW, the WOsD and smoking bans are celebrated by many FReepers. I'm still waiting for them to have the intestinal fortitude to come on these threads and celebrate the logical outcome of their disrespect for private property.
According to whom? I, certainly, neither called you a "facist," nor a fascist, nor did I attack you, unless you believe requests for information and/or clarifications to be "attacks," and declarations of fascism.
From your screen name, I assume (at my peril) you are have graduated from an institution of higher learning with some sort of degree in the area of law.
Please point to any instance of an illogical statement on my part.
I was told that once we had the Congress and the Executive, things would get better. Now you are sitting there trying to tell me that more of the same will get us anything other than more of what we are currently getting?
Prove it. If the House votes to Impeach these 5 socialists on the USSC that can't friggin' read, then I will swear an oath to vote only Republican in perpetuity. If they restore the Constitutional protections for our Rights and acknowledge the limits on their power to infringe on those Rights, then I'll finally trust more than I currently do, which is not at all.
Failure is not an option at this point.
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.