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.
Actually most legislators by far in Florida are not lawyers. Most judges are lawyers, a law in Florida enacted by the non-lawyer legislators.
People who want to know how the world of business and government work go to law school. Always have and always will.
The thing I lament is the inaccessibility of a decent graduate education. Patrick Henry 'read' for the law in 6 weeks and took the bar. Jefferson studied under Wythe in the back parlor of his home in Williamsburg. Decent apprenticeships would produce much better lawyers and professionals of all types than our current system.
Only until the SCOTUS issues another unconstitutional decision ruling that all inconsistent state laws are null and void. And what makes you think this won't be next?
"Until we can get judges who hold up the law rather than making the law, we're stuck with roundabout patches. But patches work."
Wrong answer. American citizens are entitled to have the SCOTUS protect their constitutional rights. We should not have to rely on "patches" when it comes to such fundamental rights.
"And as long as we can trump these nutty judges with state laws the system works."
Only until a left wing judiciary decides federal law must trump state law. Then where are you? And don't bother to tell us this will never happen--it can and probably will.
" Claire Wolfe is a revolutionary..."
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean she isn't right.
"...and we're just not there."
Every one will have to decide for themselves where to draw the line. Clearly, for you that point is far down the road, perhaps further than the eye can possibly discern. As for me, I'm standing on that line. I've had more than enough.
Ummmm, I don't think so. Read the New York Times ( the liberal bible) and you'll see that they're for it. Yep, they're FOR it, and the brain dead DU er's will follow the NYT's off a cliff if necessary. We might have to wait a day until they get their marching orders...
My apologies. What is the legal-profession term for forcing someone to sell when they don't want to, or to sell for a price lower and/or a time sooner than they would if they were free to shop around for the highest bidder, taking whatever time they wanted?
So if a man rapes a woman and then throws $500 on the bed it is not rape?
Look, these guys haven't been "educated" about this issue by the NYT's yet. How many times have you known dems to disagree with their leaders? (In the last 40 years - how many times?) They just don't do it. It's all lockstep and it's all the same old same old. I can't think of one new idea they've had in 40 years, can you? You might be right for now, but let's see how they feel next week when they realize they can steal the property of Republicans who live in old family homes on some lake. They won't even have to find a snail darter. They can just take the land...
So if a man rapes a woman and then throws $500 on the bed it is not rape?
I don't know. I asked esquirette what the legal-profession term for forcing someone to sell who doesn't want to is, but she has yet to tell us. You could ask her what the legal-profession term for paid-for forced sex is too.
Who knows? Does the legal profession define things and use their own terminology in such a way that they can see their clients as good guys even if they initiated force or fraud against others? I am still suspicious of lawyers who use legaleze even when talking to non-lawyers of focusing ONLY on whether something is legal or not, and NEVER on whether something is moral or not.
You know, almost all of the numerous moral codes in the western world are based on the Golden Rule, so WHETHER YOU INITIATE FORCE OR FRAUD OR NOT SHOULD BE FUNDAMENTAL, but it appears that, with lawyers, it's not. I guess this way their conscience doesn't have to bother them until way later, like when they're on their deathbeds...
Impeach the bad judges!
CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION:
http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html
Pinging: Follow this thread on "not-theft" back.
FYI this is National Own A Piece Of America Month.
/irony
You know, almost all of the numerous moral codes in the western world are based on the Golden Rule, so WHETHER YOU INITIATE FORCE OR FRAUD OR NOT SHOULD BE FUNDAMENTAL, but it appears that, with lawyers, it's not.
Reform of the legal system is difficult, because you need lawyers to write the changes... You're on the right track.
Devastating. Demoralizing. Despicable. Un-American. I am beside myself.
Revolution, anyone?
---
I am willing and ready.
http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm
My thoughts.
Everyone should sign it to send a message that Americans won't stand for this "decision" (by a few people in robes) that could negatively affect the lives of Americans nationwide.
Thanks for the ping.
So if a man rapes a woman and then throws $500 on the bed it is not rape?
Not according to esquirette and the SCOTUS, apparently.
Also see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428929/posts?page=714#714
If she obtains legal representation, the raped will only get $333.33 of the $500.00
Not according to esquirette and the SCOTUS, apparently
Esquirette is typical of the mindset of the legal community. They stand to profit regardless of which side of the issue they represent.
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.