Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes

charlotte.com - AP ^ | Jun. 23, 2005 | HOPE YEN

[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.

[Finger Monkey]

Eminent domain is a great field. Everybody gets paid

Unbelievable.

Once again, I state, you do not understand the reason for the furor. This is NOT about money

[Rodney King]

Good Morning.

Piss off.

Rodney King.

[Rodney King]

Don't waste your time arguing with a lawyer who has been long indoctrinated into the idea that morality comes from the complex legal structures that the lawyers have been paid to make, and not from any sort of timeless principals.

[af_vet_rr]

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.

Amen! There have been some things that the President or Congress have done, that have left me scratching my head, wondering if they were actual Conservatives.

This is an issue that leaves no room for doubt. Any Republican lawmaker, any Republican Presidential candidate, that does not try to act on this issue, will not get my support. I will gladly campaign for and/or donate my time to their opponents, if they support private property rights. If this means moving to the libertarian side of things or, God forbid, supporting a democrat, then so be it. There is no wiggle room here.

This is, without a doubt, the single most important decision in my lifetime.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
Question: Is suggesting a revolution a threat?

Posting that one is going to burn down someone's house is a threat.

Suggesting that it might be time for a revolution is a constitutional right.

Michael Frazier

[NJ_gent]

"Maybe this has been said, but they do have to PAY for it, and pay fair market value."

So it's ok for the government to seize someone's property to build a Walmart, so long as the government gives them "market value"? Who defines what's "fair" market value? Lawyers? Great; I trust them about as far as I can throw them. And what happens to renters when CVS decides that the house they're living in would make a great spot for a pharmacy? The owner loses their house and the renters are out in the street. Great place, this new "america". What happens when you get on the bad side of the wrong politician? What happens when politicians with signigicant political influence run into money troubles and need fast cash from 'donors'?

Unlimited, unrestrained seizure of property is the antithesis of private property rights, and I fully support the right of any property owner who exercises their second Amendment rights to protect their property at all costs from any seizure resulting from this ruling.

[Centurion2000]

Here's sopme more political fallout from this.
One) California's proposition 13 has just been effectively gutted to prevent the government from cranking up property taxes.

Two) Liberal states will NEVER enact property protections into their legislatures and state constitutions.

Example: You have a 2.5 million dollar home in San Francisco that you paid 400,000 for in 1990. You now pay say 600,000 in property taxes on it.
Now the city of San Francisco can condemn your house, pay you 120,000 (20% of tax base) and turn around and sell this land to another developer or even a real estate agent who will then sell it to someone that is going to pay 2.5 million in property tax rates.

People are going to get shot over this.

[GOPJ]

There has never been, in the history of the world, a group of elites (liberal or conservative or anything in between) that has created a government more protective of it's citizen's rights than this one. And if you think there is such a country -- please tell me about it.

The United States is the best the world has ever seen. And yeah, like you, I think this ruling is an abomination. And I want to undo it as much as you do. But, I want to undo it within the system we have -- the system of the best nation in the history of the world.

Please, tell me who's better? Prove to me why our system is second to anyone...

On your comment about "You keep on trusting people. 49% of whom voted for an obvious asshat like Kerry." , I have this to say. You speak against "socialist" and yet you love their ways. When a former leader of Russia was asked what he would do if he was voted out of office, he said he would cancel the election. That's always the solution of totalitarians. They never trust the people who don't agree with them. And the results are predictable.

Your way is the way of every thug the world has ever know. It's the default of egomaniacs. And it's not our way. Our way is new -- and different. I trust the people when they voted for Clinton (who I hated) and when they voted for Bush (who I love). If you can point to a country that does it different - maybe like Iran - where the Mullahs make the call (they know what's best - just like you know what's best. Totalitarians always know better than the great unwashed - it's their earmark)

I'm busy and have to leave, so this isn't going to be edited for anything, but I hope you get the idea. Write me about the "better" way and the "better" countries. I'm waiting.

You keep on trusting people. 49% of whom voted for an obvious asshat like Kerry. Not trusting people is why I carry a gun. Not trusting people is why I keep an eye on my government. Not trusting people is why I lock my doors at night. 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.

[Finger Monkey]

Yeah, I am giving up this particular chew toy (comment deleted by prudence). I work with lawyers every day . . . further comments deleted per my better judgment.

Fuggit. I am going back to my standard lurking on the news threads, posting on the funny.

Thanks, Rod.

Still love your name.

Bertha

P.S. Write letters, write them often, and to all your legislators at every level of government.

[shield]

FOR ALL TO SEE...
WHICH BLACK ROBES ARE WORKING FOR THE NWO!!!

HEY YOU DEMS THOSE ARE YOUR PICKS...I KNOW THAT RULING MADE YOUR DAY...

[NJ_gent]

"The liberals won this one -- but IMHO it will be a short lived victory."

Nobody won this one. Even the flaming liberals at DU are going nuts over this ruling. They're every bit as pissed as we are. Take a poll and I think you'll find 95%+ of Americans are against this ruling. This is not a government of, for, and by the people.

"I believe the people will keep electing Republicans and we'll be able to reverse this ruling."

• Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1920, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975)
• Justice Anthony Kennedy (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988)
• Justice David Souter (born 1939, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990)

Three of the justices who voted for this garbage were appointed by Republicans. It's now our own judges who are shooting us in the foot. Blind faith is quant, but not particularly helpful when you're dealing with out of control government.

"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."

And if you polled on this issue, I'll bet 95%+ of Americans are against this ruling. The SCOTUS is so completely wrong on this ruling that every liberals can see it. The only ones who apparently can't see it are the 5 morons in robes who voted for it.

[dfwgator]

"There might be legal precedent! Of course, Landsnatching . . . land, land, Land, see Snatch. Ah, Hailie vs. United Sates. Hailie: 7, United States: nothing. You see, it can be done!"

[Dead Corpse]

There has never been, in the history of the world, a group of elites (liberal or conservative or anything in between) that has created a government more protective of it's citizen's rights than this one. And if you think there is such a country -- please tell me about it.

This "government" isn't the one the Founders framed out. This is an abomination that has been growing on the corpse of our Republic for the last 70 years. That parts of our body politic are starting to rot and fall off more rapidly these days, is just a symptom.

My way? It was the Founders way. "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary..."

Guess what? It is necessary again.

[esquirette]

I understand the argument is indeed about private propety rights, and again, I make no personal insult to you. But do you pay property taxes? If so, then do you understand that if you do not pay them, the government will sell your property for you to private investors? So who owns your property now? If you rent from the government, the government in fact already owns it.

This all started along time ago, and to argue about the incidentals is bad enough, without characterizing the argument poorly and inaccurately. All the articles I have read make the implication that the property is taken without compensation. In fact, those who take up the hue and cry on that basis and belief are ignorant of the law, and immediately lose their credibility to help solve the problem.

So, until we demonstrate some understanding of the law as it is, stop arguing in half truths and in personal attacks, we have no ability to state our position well and credibly.

I am not saying that any eminent domain is just or that this decision is correct. But an understanding of the facts and the law will be required to correct things.

[SoCal Pubbie]

In concept your example seems correct but how could the city pay only $120,000 for the property when it would clearly be worth much more?

[babyface00]

What other enumerated rights are the State's capable of rescinding?

There are no enumerated rights in the Constitution. The Constitution is a listing of the enumerated powers of the federal government. It says nothing about the relationship between the citizens and their respective states, which are free to come up with any internal laws they wish, Constitutionally - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to interfere in a state's eminent domain proceedings, it is the purvue of the state, or the people, not the FG or the SC.

That said, its too bad the SC didn't take this stance when Roe v. Wade was up for consideration, or sodomy legislation, or civil rights, or slavery. Just because we don't like the outcome, we shouldn't criticize the court for finally acting like we've been insisting they do - this is the ultimate strict constructionist and/or states rights ruling. While it may have dangerous and unpopular short term ramifications, the long-term precedence it sets could be a good thing.

[NJ_gent]

"Actually it is...any attempt to overthrow the government is considered a threat."

At the birth of the nation, New York and Rhode Island both asserted the right of the people to reassume the powers held by the government should they ever be abused. New Hampshire's state Constitution contains this:

"[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."[Emph mine]

[esquirette]

Did anything in my post say I agree with this ruling? Seriously, no. I simply disagree with mischaracterization of the facts.

And by the way the appraiser of your choice determines the value.

The Supreme Court will act in a condescending manner and rule as it pleases until we stop relying on inflammatory arguments and personal attacks.

I am simply calling for those interested in an issue to get informed about it before spouting off.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"How is this different?"

Taking your land to build luxury condos on it is different from taking your land to build a highway on it. This decision makes it easier for land to be taken for commercial purposes.

Michael Frazier

[NJ_gent]

"Taking your land to build luxury condos on it is different from taking your land to build a highway on it. This decision makes it easier for land to be taken for commercial purposes."

When you think about it, there's really nothing to stop the state from streamlining the whole process. Create an 'Office of Eminent Domain' where businesses simply point out property they want and show that there will be at least some increase in tax revenue. The state agency then seizes control of the property. Even better, the state could put into law that commercial entities can deal directly with private citizens on such matters. In other words, someone from Walmart phones you up at home and, instead of trying to sell you something, tells you there's a check on its way to you and to be out of the house by July 10th.