Posted on 06/23/2005 3:26:27 PM PDT by Still Thinking
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court gave local governments broad power today to bulldoze homes and other private property to make way for business development, a ruling that could encourage more city-backed plans to replace small stores with big-box retailers.
The 5-4 ruling upheld a plan by officials in a coastal Connecticut town to condemn nine homes of longtime residents that would be replaced with an office complex and a marina.
The dispute between the homeowners and the city officials became a classic test of government power versus individual rights. It pitted a community's hopes for economic rebirth against an individual's right to keep one's home.
Economic development emerged as the clear winner.
The high court's opinion goes further than before in allowing the government to invoke its "eminent domain" and to seize private property from unwilling sellers.
The Constitution says government may take private property "for public use" if it pays the owners "just compensation." Originally, public use meant the land was used for roads, canals or military bases. In the 19th century, railroads were permitted to take private lands because they served the public.
In the mid-20th century, the court said officials could condemn homes and stores in "blighted" areas as part of a redevelopment plan. That 1954 decision helped trigger various urban renewal projects across the nation.
In today's decision, the court went a step further and said officials need not claim they were condemning blighted properties or clearing slums. Now, as long as officials hope to create jobs or raise tax collections, they can seize the homes of unwilling sellers, the court said. This "public purpose" is a "public use" of the land, the court said in Kelo vs. New London.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I have an idea. Let's get the DC City Council to condemn the Supreme Court building so they can put up a Wal*Mart. |
I hope someone bulldozes their homes.
Be more useful (and that's going a ways, cuz I HATE Great-Wall Mart)!
Guys
This is an issue both the far left, far right, and libertarians totally agree. Lets work together to remove these judges , or do whatever needs to be done.
I personally, have never written to a single politician. I always vote, minus one small election, since I have been registered. Someone educate me on what my options are. This pisses me off so bad I am having a tinge of activism hit me.
This ruling is so for a few elite in every city to run ramshod over anyone they want. I am simply DISGUSTED with the SC.
Horrible decision.
I THOUGHT I heard something about this earlier ... Missed the first half, so I thought it was maybe something out of the 9th "Circus" court, that would be overturned by anyone that ever read the Constitution.
Cripes------
All I can say is:
OVER MY DEAD BODY.
Regardless, a few of them actually veered dangerously close to commonsense on this singular issue. Wonders never cease.
If I am reading this ruling correctly it appears the US Supreme court just made it perfectly legal for the city of New York to sieze the property that the UN is built on for purposes of building a shopping mall.
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.