Posted on 06/29/2005 8:04:52 AM PDT by wmichgrad
Don't round up the militia just yet to help keep the government from taking your property.
Private-property rights advocates are up in arms over a June 23 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says local governments can condemn peoples' homes and turn the property over to developers for shopping centers, office parks and other private business projects.
``Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in a blistering dissent to the court's 5-4 ruling in a Connecticut case. ``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.''
Nothing, that is, except more restrictive laws in states like Michigan, which keep land-grabbing governments at bay.
While the court said it was OK for New London, Conn., to seize homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices, it also ruled that states can set their own laws regarding the use of ``eminent domain,'' or property condemnation.
In Michigan, you can rest comfortably knowing your local city council can't haul you out of your home on your La-Z-Boy and demolish your house to make way for a new Wal-Mart.
The Michigan Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling last year, said the taking of private property for economic development violates the state's constitution. Eminent domain is restricted to public uses such as roads and schools, or to clear blighted properties, the court said.
Its ruling, known as the Hathcock decision (named after a defendant in the case), stopped Wayne County from using eminent domain to assemble property for a 1,300-acre office park that promised 30,000 new jobs.
As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling ``will not have any impact in Michigan,'' says Carl Rashid, a real estate attorney in the Butzel Long law firm in Detroit. ``Hathcock is the law.''
But some say the decision could lead to challenges of Michigan's law, or efforts to amend the state constitution by government officials hungry for more jobs and economic development.
In an effort to head off such a challenge, state Sen. Tony Stamas, R-Midland, on Tuesday proposed amending the state's constitution to outlaw the use of eminent domain for economic development.
Economic developers say eminent domain often is necessary to acquire the final pieces of property for large developments from owners who refuse to sell or make unreasonable price demands.
And some fear that Michigan could be at a competitive disadvantage with other states that allow eminent domain to be used for economic development.
Officials at the Michigan Economic Development Corp., the state's business-attraction agency, tell me they are unsure if the U.S. Supreme Court ruling will hurt the state's effort to land major projects, such as research centers.
Rashid said some of the highest-profile economic development projects in the state in recent years, such as Comerica Park and Ford Field in Detroit, minimized the use of eminent domain.
That happened, he said, because government officials began purchase negotiations with reasonable offers, rather than low-balling property owners.
``They adopted a smarter approach than in the past,'' he said about the sports stadium projects. Rashid represented large property owners in those cases.
Alan Ackerman, a Troy attorney who represents property owners in eminent domain cases, said he thinks the fight over private property rights is far from over.
He said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling has created the explosive property rights equivalent of letting the states decide the legality of abortion.
``This was not a 9-0 decision,'' Ackerman said. ``It was a 5-4 decision. This will be revisited.''
Contact Rick Haglund at (248) 540-7311 or e-mail him at rhaglund@boothnewspapers.com
FYI
Government officials are never hungry for more jobs or economic development. They are hungry for higher tax revenues ... the so-called "public benefit" that is at the heart of the SCOTUS decision.
I saw a story on FOX this morning about a Detroit area cabinet maker who fought and won against the city and developers. It seems that the state supreme court overturned lower court rulings against him.
MI eminent domain ping!
After Souter, I'd like to suggest Teddy Kennedy's ocean-front property at Martha's Vineyard...One of the few places where no oil rigs can be seen towering over the waves...Great place for a convention center...on the other hand... I am sure lots of money would roll into public coffers far in excess of any taxes paid by the Kennedy Estate....
Political Correctness also compels me to suggest that, "in fairness," Teddy's property could also be used to construct Section 8 Public Housing Projects on the site so that the less affluent can enjoy some of the same scenic benefits as the Well-to-do....
I'm sure the champions of multiculturalism and diversity would welcome with open arms new mixed development /sarcasm!
What part of no don't these people understand? If someone doesn't want to sell their property and you force them against their will, this is extortion, or stealing, however you want to look at it.
What makes these developers think they have the right to finish their developments at any cost to other people?
Good for MI. I would say when the next elections for state senator come about for any state, the ones against banning eminent domain for private gain will not be re-elected.
Markman, Taylor, Young, and Corrigan for SCOTUS.
I can easily foresee that such State Supreme Court decisions could very quickly be overturned based on the USSC's recent decision.
The ONLY way that the individual's right is protected now is IF the State Constitution specifically bans such practices. If "Public Use" is the wording, with no further restrictions, your rights are toast.
I am afraid that you've hit the nail on the head. Eminent domain has reached the end of it's legitimate usefulness. When the country was young, much infrastructure was needed, but now no such need exists. Government must be completely removed from the land use planning question, and replaced with open market land acquision by those interested in development, and sufficiently experienced to plan their own investments.
The thuggish power of government has no legitimate place in this.
How generous of them! Good to know that they will allow states to set their own laws as to what property rights their residents get. Did any of these justices actually READ the constitution before their confirmation???
From his blog:
I am today announcing my intention to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights. This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property. In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceased to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action.
So... Is GM giving back Poletown?
In fairness to the Kennedys, from that property probably at least $5 million is paid each year in liquor taxes. You have to give them credit for that.
Great, just the state we NEED to grab land in. There is a huge market in hog processing plants, for tax purposes of course. There are plenty of mosques and terror institutes that should be replaced with hog farms that will pay a lot more money than the slaves of satan are right now.
BTTT!!!!!!
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.