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.
Once again...I get it now.
Yes, North Carolina apparently already allows "private condemnors" who don't need the state's assistance in takings. (Fortunately, North Carolina tries to restrict these activities, but still I was surprised to read that any state allows private bodies to condemn private property):
§ 40A-3. By whom right may be exercised.
(a) Private Condemnors. – For the public use or benefit, the persons or organizations listed below shall have the power of eminent domain and may acquire by purchase or condemnation property for the stated purposes and other works which are authorized by law.
(1) Corporations, bodies politic or persons have the power of eminent domain for the construction of railroads, power generating facilities, substations, switching stations, microwave towers, roads, alleys, access railroads, turnpikes, street railroads, plank roads, tramroads, canals, telegraphs, telephones, electric power lines, electric lights, public water supplies, public sewerage systems, flumes, bridges, and pipelines or mains originating in North Carolina for the transportation of petroleum products, coal, gas, limestone or minerals. Land condemned for any liquid pipelines shall:
a. Not be less than 50 feet nor more than 100 feet in width; and
b. Comply with the provisions of G.S. 62-190(b).
The width of land condemned for any natural gas pipelines shall not be more than 100 feet.
(2) School committees or boards of trustees or of directors of any corporation holding title to real estate upon which any private educational institution is situated, have the power of eminent domain in order to obtain a pure and adequate water supply for such institution.
(3) Franchised motor vehicle carriers or union bus station companies organized by authority of the Utilities Commission, have the power of eminent domain for the purpose of constructing and operating union bus stations: Provided, that this subdivision shall not apply to any city or town having a population of less than 60,000.
(4) Any railroad company has the power of eminent domain for the purposes of: constructing union depots; maintaining, operating, improving or straightening lines or of altering its location; constructing double tracks; constructing and maintaining new yards and terminal facilities or enlarging its yard or terminal facilities; connecting two of its lines already in operation not more than six miles apart; or constructing an industrial siding.
(5) A condemnation in fee simple by a State-owned railroad company for the purposes specified in subdivision (4) of this subsection and as provided under G.S. 124-12(2).
The width of land condemned for any single or double track railroad purpose shall be not less than 80 feet nor more than 100 feet, except where the road may run through a town, where it may be of less width, or where there may be deep cuts or high embankments, where it may be of greater width.
No rights granted or acquired under this subsection shall in any way destroy or abridge the rights of the State to regulate or control any railroad company or to regulate foreign corporations doing business in this State. Whenever it is necessary for any railroad company doing business in this State to cross the street or streets in a town or city in order to carry out the orders of the Utilities Commission, to construct an industrial siding, the power is hereby conferred upon such railroad company to occupy such street or streets of any such town or city within the State. Provided, license so to do be first obtained from the board of aldermen, board of commissioners, or other governing authorities of such town or city.
No such condemnor shall be allowed to have condemned to its use, without the consent of the owner, his burial ground, usual dwelling house and yard, kitchen and garden, unless condemnation of such property is expressly authorized by statute.
The power of eminent domain shall be exercised by private condemnors under the procedures of Article 2 of this Chapter.
"In the July, 2004 ruling, the court correctly studied this matter from the view of original intent."
What case was brought to the Michigan SC that initiated this ruling?
According to the 9th Ammendment, the constitution does enumerate specific writes that all citizens are to be garunteed, regardless of the states.
Hey Ray,
Isn't this your definition of capitalism? Why haven't you come on over for a little celebration of this decision?
I think you are right! From what I have witnessed, this poster really believes this is the best for everyone. heh!
I blame the Democrats for this decision. Why? The answer is can be summed up in one word: BORK.
Robert Bork, a highly distinguished and extremely qualified legal scholar, was vilified by the Democrats when Reagan nominated him to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. The nomination hearings in the Senate were so filled with character assasination, nasty innuendos and dirty tricks that a new verb was created - "to bork" someone is to run their name through the mud for political purposes.
After Bork's nomination failed in the Senate, due to the vilifying treatment he received, Reagan then nominated Kennedy, who was later confirmed.
I cannot fathom a Justice Bork siding on the wrong side of this decision - as Kennedy did.
So, whenever someone from DU or other leftist organization complains about this decision, remind them of Judge Bork and how this decision would have been different if he, and not Kennedy, were on the Supreme Court.
I don't think Mr. Bork is all that strong on private property rights in takings cases. I believe that in his popular book that he actually evinces some sympathy toward the "strong form of taking" side. However, I read it only once when it first came out, and my memory could be way off on that point.
Also, he might well put out a statement or opinion piece on this decision; I have done a few searches, but I haven't seen anything pop up yet.
Good morning.
I don't think I will, Rod.
Michael Frazier
And the lawyer in eminent domain actually defends your property rights against the government--the lawyer of your choice, I might add.
Too bad you don't see that lawyers protect people from the government by understanding their rights.
By the way, do you get paid for what you do?
Why do you think I celebrate the reality that states have domain over property? The fact that I attempt to educate you and others about state rights doesn't mean I celebrate the situation.
You celebrate and applaud smoking bans. You describe the larger chain restaurants support of such bans, ultimately eliminating their smaller competitors, as capitalism. In this case, a private developer is using government force to confiscate private property. No difference.
It has now been sanctioned by the USSC. When is your party?
Amen
You have me confused with someone else if the ban is from government.
You describe the larger chain restaurants support of such bans, ultimately eliminating their smaller competitors, as capitalism.
That is a fact.
In this case, a private developer is using government force to confiscate private property.
More like government is using the private developer.
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.