I really do not think anyone can imagine what chaos this decision could cause. Casino's , hotels, wealthy overseas investors and the like will be scouring neighborhoods for the perfect score. Office buildings replacing homes because the tax base is higher will uproute average people. They will all blame George W. Bush. Watch.
"I really do not think anyone can imagine what chaos this decision could cause. "
Here's one comment already:
http://www.record-journal.com/articles/2005/06/24/news/news01.txt
Meriden, Conn.
Decision could help city in redevelopment project
By Steven Scarpa, Record-Journal staff
MERIDEN -- A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday upholding the rights of local government to seize property for private development could theoretically apply to the City Center Initiative, although backers say it is unlikely eminent domain will be needed.
"I think that power should always be used sensitively. But it is good for the economic development business," said Wayne D'Amico, Meriden Economic Resource Group coordinator.
Editorial from Macon, Georgia
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/opinion/11969331.htm
Posted on Fri, Jun. 24, 2005
There is no safe haven for U.S. property owners
Probably few in Middle Georgia know much about the case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday - Susette Kelo, et al., v. City of New London, Conn., et al., No. 04-108. However, the impact of the 5-4 ruling will reverberate throughout the country.
The case seems simple on the surface. The petitioners asked one question: "What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight, but for the sole purpose of 'economic development' that will perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the local economy?"
Basically, the city of New London handed its eminent domain powers to the not-for-profit New London Development Corp. The NLDC had created a plan to redevelop the Fort Trumbull neighborhood (Pfizer planned to build a global research center adjacent to it) and decided a hotel conference center, new residences and offices were a better use for the land than the established neighborhood there. So they took it. And now the Supreme Court has made their land grab legal.
The petitioners all live in the neighborhood with the Thames River as a scenic backdrop. One petitioner lives in a home that has been in her family since 1901. Her son's home, next door, has been in the family since 1903. Now all that will soon change. The NLDC will own the land but will lease it to developers for $1 a year. The city hopes those developers' projects will bring it $1.2 million in property taxes.
So what does this mean? Writing in dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it bluntly, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Unfortunately, O'Connor's opinion was not shared by justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer.
On behalf of that majority, Justice Stevens wrote, "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept (public purpose) broadly"
Not only does this decision legalize taking property from individuals for the purpose of increasing a tax base. It also allows the government to cheat individual owners out of the appreciated values of their property. Owners - victims - will receive "fair" compensation, but who decides that? And is that compensation determined by present or future use?
We agree with the opinion expressed by Scott Bullock, the attorney representing the families, in The New York Times. "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today," he said. "Our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."