Posted on 06/26/2005 12:28:12 PM PDT by FreeKeys
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Shocked at a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows cities to raze homes so developers can build private hotels, malls and office parks on the land, state lawmakers called for legislation to ban the practice Friday.
The high court split 5-4 in a Connecticut case Thursday that under the Fifth Amendment, municipalities could take private property for private development because the project in question met a public purpose: creating jobs and revenue.
But in an impassioned dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the court majority had forsaken the middle class and gutted the American principle of individual property rights to further enrich the wealthy.
At least eight states already forbid local governments from using eminent domain to take private property for private development. The high court's majority opinion said states may adopt protections against the practice if they see fit.
In conservative Virginia, the ruling stunned and angered legislative Democrats and Republicans, some of whom began exploring ways to nullify the ruling in the state.
Del. Johnny Joannou was on his way Friday to consult with bill-drafting experts in the General Assembly's Division of Legislative Services about a remedy, possibly a state constitutional amendment.
"I really couldn't believe it," said Joannou, D-Portsmouth, shaking his head as he gazed at printouts of news stories about the decision. "They've ruled that almost anything is a public use now, and that really concerns me. A lot of our rights in this country stem from property rights."
Government always has been empowered to take property for a public purpose under a legal principle known as the power of eminent domain. Governments routinely use the process to condemn and claim land necessary for such uses as roads, schools and parks. Property owners must be paid a fair market value.
Localities also can raze blighted property for the purposes of safety and community improvement. But Thursday's ruling was the first to give local governments the right to convey property from one private owner to another for the purpose of development.
The legislature's two most powerful leaders denounced the ruling.
"I think it was a crummy decision," said House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, an estate lawyer by profession.
"You don't have to be a brilliant lawyer to know the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. It defies logic to say government can take private property for private uses," he said.
Senate President Pro Tem John H. Chichester, R-Stafford, said he was "absolutely appalled" at the ruling. "I certainly hope there will be some bills prefiled, but we have to exercise caution and not do this in haste."
Sen. Benjamin Lambert, a member of the Legislative Black Caucus, said he fears the decision will harm minority homeowners most.
"Through the years, blacks in particular who have owned property have seen eminent domain come in and take it. I am quite sure members of the Black Caucus will get together on this," said Lambert, D-Richmond.
The Virginia Municipal League, an advocacy and lobbying organization for Virginia's cities, worries that the emotion of the issue could lead to legislative overkill, said Mark Flynn, VML's director of legal services.
"It really is important that this issue not get confused with the poster child of someone who just doesn't want to sell," said Flynn, who also lobbies for VML.
He was referring to the New London, Conn., case on which the Supreme Court decision was based. That economically depressed city desperately needed the land for a new, upscale development, and all but a handful of property owners had agreed to sell.
In Virginia, such cases would be extremely rare, Flynn said.
"After the dust settles, I'm sure there will be legislation. But it's been my experience in Virginia that with localities _ even the biggest city, Virginia Beach _ they all absolutely loathe eminent domain like crazy," Flynn said.
One reason is hauling small homeowners into court and using the legal might of government to strip them of their homes creates disastrous public relations and lingering resentments against elected officials.
Another reason is it's cheaper to offer a homeowner a buyout price he can't turn down than to hire lawyers, said Flynn, a lawyer himself.
He said VML won't necessarily oppose legislation to bar local use of eminent domain for private development, "but what we do need to protect for cities is the right to redevelop areas that are in blight or falling into blight."
Flynn also said new legislation needs to account for the growing use of public-private partnerships in which the roads, schools and buildings once the sole province of the public sector are built at government direction for a public use by private investors.
Reason: How is this going to affect lower court decisions in other eminent domain cases, such as the Michigan Supreme Court's reversal of the Poletown decision last year?Scott Bullock: What's important to point out is that even the majority admitted that state courts are free to interpret their own provisions in a manner that's more protective of property rights. Thankfully, every state Constitution has prohibitions against private takings and a requirement that takings be for public use. And, only six states have held that economic development condemnations are Constitutional. Nine have held that they are not. And most states have not addressed it.
-- excerpt from: http://www.reason.com/interviews/bullock.shtml
So the FIRST thing to do is to get your state to strengthen its anti-taking laws and put real TEETH in them, and establish a special fund for district attorneys to investigate and prosecute violations, with arrangements for publicity for high-profile cases. Wuddya think? Better ideas sought here!
Bravo Virginia! I am SO glad I live in a SANE commomweath (that's state to all you other folks...)
Paging the Democrats...
You can't have it both ways.
Now let's see if the Socialist State of New Jersey will do the same ..!!
Excellent! I was afraid I was going to have to use some of my vacation to lobby them.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Morgan Griffith will push it through.
If they've been listening to talk radio at all, they'll pass it :) I know folks who normally AWOL when it comes to anything political, and they are now livid at the thought this could happen to them. A sleeping giant has awakened.
Republican Tom McClintock of California is sponsoring a bill like this. Which means it's probably doomed in the dingbat leftist legislature; the Dems would cut off their arms before they voted for anything major from a Republican. We'll probably end up having to have an initiative to get this passed. I hope we do soon, because the members of the San Diego City Council would give their firstbord children to anyone with a campaign contribution. Selling a developer our property wouldn't give them a second's pause.
Beyond snotty. How dare someone wish to do with their private property what they want?!
John Adams
I expect other states will do the same.
"Now let's see if the Socialist State of New Jersey will do the same ..!!"
No way. No freaking way. NJ is the most densely populated state in the nation, it is also bi-partisanly corrupt to its very core.
I have been living here for 17 years and I am dying to get out. But like the man said "people have tried before".
Clearly we have a long, long way to go to reach true liberty.
Before you know it, folks will want their children to inherit the old homeplace.
"A sleeping giant has awakened."
Yes, this seems to be an accurate decision. They have pleased a small minority and infuriated about 85% of everyone, in every party. They have threatened the foundation of this country. This decision will last about as long a Dred Scott.
My sentiments exactly.
I'm spitting mad over the Supreme Court's decision and I'll be making my phone calls tomorrow.
Mr. Flynn will be hearing from me too. VML's staff page is here: http://www.vml.org/AboutVML/Staff.html
If Va passes this, good for them- next: the other 49 states.
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.