Posted on 06/24/2005 10:19:47 AM PDT by dead
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a ruling watched closely in New Jersey, on Thursday upheld a Connecticut city's right to seize homes and other properties solely for economic development.
The 5-4 decision is likely to make it easier for dozens of North Jersey towns to use eminent domain condemnations in similar ways, supporters and opponents of the decision agreed.
"Englewood, Ridgefield, Passaic - many towns have been adopting plans in the past several years based on economic redevelopment, and I believe this means that it's now full-steam ahead," said Bruce Rosenberg, a land-use attorney for the Hackensack-based law firm of Winne, Banta, Hetherington, Basralian & Kahn.
"This is what could be called the Supreme Court's imprimatur on those efforts, basically adopting what New Jersey already has adopted in its legislation."
Clifton, Lodi, Paterson and Hawthorne are among the other North Jersey communities using or considering using eminent domain condemnations for economic purposes.
Fair-housing groups and potentially displaced tenants were among those who railed against the court's refusal, in the Kelo v. New London case, to reverse decades of broadening use of eminent domain, which at one time restricted the taking of property to such public benefits as highways and bridges.
"This creates open season on neighborhoods," said Jeff Tittel, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club.
In Ridgefield, where more than 60 businesses in a 30-acre tract have been earmarked for redevelopment, the decision disappointed business owners.
"It gives local governments too much power," said Thomas Bonanno III, whose family-owned real estate group rents commercial space to 27 companies, employing more than 150 people in the area.
"It destroys people's livelihoods and takes away their property."
The linchpin of the Ridgefield plan is the 15-acre site of the former Pfister Chemical plant, next to Overpeck Creek and south of Route 46. It includes an abandoned factory, loading docks and chemical tanks.
Alan Mallach, research director for the Montclair-based National Housing Institute, said he did not object to the court's upholding of the principle of eminent domain.
"But what the court didn't recognize is that there is a real problem of abuse in a whole bunch of towns in New Jersey, where the economic redevelopment power is used in areas where the main objection is that there are too many poor people there or too many renters, " Mallach said.
"I personally think that there ought to be some constraints."
Former Fair Lawn Mayor Ed Trawinski, an attorney with expertise in land use and zoning, said the power of municipalities is now so broad that a town council could, for instance, condemn a city block simply to replace large-family dwellings with residential options that would require fewer city services.
But Scott Mollen, an attorney for Herrick Feinstein, which has offices in Newark and Princeton, said that the court properly recognized that New London is an economically depressed town that needs to change with the times.
"The majority recognized that the benefits to the community at large outweigh the rights of an individual property owner to, in essence, block important urban redevelopment, especially when the law already requires that an owner receive fair and just compensation," Mollen said.
Lodi trailer park residents have a court date for July 18, when they hope to prevent losing their homes to a private developer's plan to construct a gated senior-living community and retail property on the land. "It certainly would have been helpful if they placed some limitations on its [eminent domain's] use," said Kendall Kardt, president of Save Our Homes, the group organizing the legal fight for residents of Brown's Trailer Park and Costa Trailer Court.
Lodi Mayor Gary Paparozzi called the ruling a "shot in the arm" for the borough.
"The trailer park is like a poster child for redevelopment," Paparozzi said. "That's the best-case scenario for using eminent domain."
Mary Gail Snyder, research fellow for the National Housing Institute, said that the trend toward waterfront development in New Jersey in areas such as Hoboken and Jersey City is not necessarily affected, because most of that land consists of large parcels with a single owner.
"But this ruling could now allow the same market trend to expand even to where there are neighborhoods," she said. "Before, developers were discouraged from that, because you'd have a lot of small landowners and it would have been harder to get all of them to agree [to sell]."
The ruling was hailed by Newark Mayor Sharpe James, whose city is planning a $550 million, 2,000-condominium project on a 13-acre parcel that was declared blighted for eminent domain purposes in November.
"Our Mulberry Street project is a clear example of the Supreme Court ruling where the future of the city is more important than private profit motivations," James said in a statement.
Mollen, the lawyer, disputed contentions that Thursday's ruling will dramatically affect the New Jersey redevelopment landscape.
"Most government agencies already have been proceeding on the assumption that economic development is a valid justification [for invoking eminent domain]," Mollen said. "I don't expect any unleashing of massive new development."
Supporters and opponents both agreed on one thing: The ruling does not preclude the state Legislature in Trenton from passing a law restricting the use of eminent domain.
"If a state wants to set the bar higher for eminent domain use, it still can," said Dianne Brake, president of the Trenton-based Regional Planning Partnership. "The process has to be transparent, for instance, to help avoid having graft come into play."
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority that it was up to local officials, not federal judges, to determine what uses of eminent domain are beneficial.
The court's other left-leaning judges agreed, while moderate Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent of a concern that "disproportionate influence and power" was being granted to municipalities.
Staff Writers John Gavin and Jaci Smith contributed to this article, which also contains material from The Associated Press.
6712231
Artile 5 only seems to deal with the ratification of new ammendments and changes to the constitution. I didn't see anything about emmenent domain. If you are saying that the supreme court shouldn't be inventing laws, I agree, but it seems all they did was uphold the right of city governments and not the federal government to determine when it is necessary. They didn't make any new laws. I'm not terrified of this ruling - I'm not about to head for the hills.
And yep, been a freeper since last year. I don't agree with everything I read here. But on other things, like abortion, I've actually switched my original opinions. Regarding abortion, I'm now thoroughly against it where I used to think it was perfectly fine. Same thing with "assault weapons" - I now know this is simply the dems' way of spreading fear and gaining more power. I could go on. Convince me how this ruling is bad for America. I believe in trusting our government, for the most part, and changing the things we don't like.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or navel forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or Public danger: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for PUBLIC use without just compensation.”
mudblood said:
”If you are saying that the supreme court shouldn't be inventing laws, I agree”
Good then you would agree when taking property from one individual and giving it to another doesn’t in anyway mean it is for ‘public use.’
This will hurt real estate markets onplaces like suburban NJ and greatly help markets in places like New York City, where use of eminent domain is unheard of. In Chelsea, NYC where I am, the last time it was used was in 1931 to tear down abandoned tenements to built a Ma Bell station.
How did the liberals react to this ruling?Pretty negatively for the most part.
And it was the LIBERALS on the SC who pushed this travesty through.
This is NOT the same America I came to love and cherish as a child.
I thought eminent domain was used in the redevelopment of downtown Brooklyn. (Metro-Tech etc...)
Urban renewal project have been considered public use for a long time.
Not that I want to start a debate on this, but the way I remember, the entire premise of the founding of the US of A was a strong distrust of government. So much so that the Constitution was written to bind its power tightly and to protect the people from it.
As Mr. Franklin said when asked what form of government the framers had devised, "A republic, if you can keep it." That implies not trust, but constant surveillance of the operation on the part of the citizens, IMO.
SVD is referring to Article V of the Amendments (amendments are also referenced in Article V of the body of the Constitution. click here to read the US Constitution
click here to read the Amendments to the Constitution
The first ten amendendents to the Constitution are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, a package of amendments ratified as part of the Constitution, without which several of the original colonies would not ratify the Constitution. There is a preamble to the Bill of Rights that explains why this was the case - read it here that is deliberately omitted from most reproductions of the Amendments and Constitution, but nevertheless, it exists.
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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.
It clearly states "just compensation". Where can you go from there?
You seem to be stuck on those two words, to the exclusion of the many thousands before and after in the founding documents and historical records of the United States.
Yes it says "just compensation." But it doesn’t say for private use, it says for public use.
When you no longer have control over your property, the property is no longer yours it is societies. Is that a capitalist state or a socialist state, I ask you?
Public use could be cleaning up a seedy part of town with rundown buildings and liquor stores on every corner. Its all in how you define it.
Yes and the SCOTUS chose to define it as any way for the city to make a profit.
"Yes and the SCOTUS chose to define it as any way for the city to make a profit."
Clearly I've been defining it as removing problem areas within a city. The supreme court defined the entire issue as a non-federal issue and threw it back to the city governments to decide. If you have a problem with the decisions that your city government makes, try coming out for local elections (and I paint everyone with that brush, because the turnout is always pitifully low for these elections).
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.