Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
[From WSJ] "Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use" and if "just compensation" is provided.
***
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities shouldn't have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
***
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," Justice O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. (Kelo et al v. City of New London)"
Yeah, the totalitarian control grid was quite well thought out, wasn't it?
moving ever close to the tipping point for the next revolution....or slavery...which will it be?
Right down to the "even the FReeper nuts know this is wrong" comments.
I'm withholding judgment until the slip opinion makes the Supreme Court's website.
Apparently every one of them!
Exactly! See #522 above. The tagline hints it's an Israeli.
I got a better idea. Don't you agree that their homes are the perfect locations for brand new Wal-Marts?
The Court did not say that the Takings Clause can be used to justify taking one house to replace it with one business. On the contrary, they relied on the overall plan and the benefits of a major redevelopment. Your position would permit direct transfers of one piece of property from one private owner to another based solely on a net benefit in General Welfare (such as higher taxes on a store than a house or farm). The Court rejected that logic.
You might want to consider reading the opinions.
That may or may not be true for residential property in those states, but I don't believe that holds in South Carolina with other property, such as farms or commercial property -- or the property owned by another state:
Authority to weigh port plan
State agency will review Jasper, other proposals
BY MICHAEL R. SHEA, The Beaufort Gazette
Published Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005CHARLESTON -- The State Ports Authority voted Tuesday to consider the Jasper County port compromise, but the state agency remains steadfast in pursuing its own vision of a cargo container terminal on the north bank of the Savannah River.
On Thursday, the Jasper County Council unanimously approved a settlement option in its ongoing Supreme Court legal battle with the State Ports Authority. The state agency, by a unanimous vote, agreed to forward that compromise to its attorneys for consideration.
The State Ports Authority and Jasper County have been embroiled in six months of litigation since the state agency filed a Supreme Court lawsuit against the county in January. The move came just days after the county reached a $450 million development agreement with private port builder SSA Marine. The lawsuit aims to settle who has the superior right to build a port on the Savannah River.
"We have received a proposal from Jasper County and we welcome it," Carroll Campbell II, a member of the authority's board of directors, read from a prepared statement. "The proposal is complex and raises complicated business and legal issues. I move that we refer the proposal to (legal) counsel for review and that the authority proceed along the competitive bidding process previously authorized by this board."
Last week the State Ports Authority's executive management met with 12 ocean carriers and stevedoring companies, including SSA Marine, to court private partnership dollars for the Charleston Navy Base and Jasper County port projects. This week, officials are meeting with companies in New Jersey for a second informational meeting. SSA Marine is expected to attend.
The meetings are a result of a January board decision to take the county to the court and pursue its own private partner for a Savannah River port project.
After Tuesday's meeting, Ports Authority chairman Harry Butler said the settlement offer will be considered when reviewing other private partnerships options.
"We're trying to pick the best structure," he said, "and I'm sure multiple companies will come up with multiple structures."
Private enterprises interested in the partnership with State Ports in Jasper County and Charleston must submit proposals by Aug. 1, at which point the state agency will decide on the best deal structure and release a request for bids to the open market.
Tuesday's meeting drew attention after Tom Davis, a Beaufort member of the State Port Authority, announced that he thought the agency should entertain settlement options. Davis was supported by five of the seven senators and eight of the 14 representatives in the Charleston Legislative Delegation and every General Assembly member from Beaufort.
Senator Scott Richardson, R-Hilton Head Island, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
After Tuesday's meeting, Davis refused to comment, in part because of Campbell's motion, which included a de facto gag order.
"All future communication or interaction will be by the chairman, attorneys, or other individuals duly authorized by the chairman," Campbell included in the motion.
Butler explained the action, saying it was recommended by Ports Authority attorneys, Columbia-based Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough.
That the authority chose to consider the proposal pleased Jasper County.
"That's fair enough; we're still in the ballpark," said George Hood, chairman of the Jasper County Council. "That is better than turning it down flatly."
The authority caught heavy criticism in March from both the county and the General Assembly for refusing Sen. Clementa Pinckney's proposed compromise, which included an SSA-built port turned over the state after 30 years.
"I'm glad it's at least being considered," Pinckney said Tuesday of the new compromise. "I hope it won't be studied to death or killed by committee, but given serious consideration. I hope everyone realizes time is of the essence."
Although the mechanics of the County Council compromise have not been released publicly, Butler loosely discussed the plan Monday. It includes a Phase 1 development by SSA Marine and Jasper County, with the State Ports Authority owning the entire property and being responsible for spearheading the land condemnation effort, he said.
As Tuesday's meeting made clear, Jasper County and the authority have elaborate development plans for the 1,863 acres on the South Carolina bank of the Savannah River. But the land is owned by the Georgia Department of Transportation, and any South Carolina usage of the site will require a successful condemnation.
Before any agent of South Carolina goes after Georgia-owned land, who's in charge on this side of the river needs to be decided, a question likely to remain unanswered until the Supreme Court convenes this fall.
Contact Michael R. Shea at 298-1057 or mshea@beaufortgazette.com. To comment on this story, please go to islandpacket.com.
Now, after all of Georgia's and South Carolina's squabbling about land around the Savannah, it looks there will be another argument since it doesn't appear that South Carolina is just going to buy this land from Georgia.
A most excellent analysis. Thanks for posting this.
I do recall that this is a legitimate basis for what would otherwise be a violation of the dormant commerce clause.
It is getting to the point that it doesn't make sense to own a home in this country any more. Between abusive municipal governments and abusive homeowner associations, it makes more and more sense just to do what I am doing now...rent!
You wouldn't even have a State. End of civilization. Has it come to that?
Did you read comment #164, #102, etc? If not, please read it to understand the proper context of the comment.
IMO, Bush is RINO-lite. 50% more funding for national education, prescription drug plan, refusing to control the borders and calling the Minutemen "vigilantes". Not to mention, he gave $50mil to Abbas. Do you like that?
Like I've said before, today's political system has been pulled so far to the left that Democraps are Commies/Socialists and Repubs are conservative democrats/socialist-lite.
If we are the nuts then why is it that the DU geniuses have sided with the Conservative wing of the Court on this case and on the medicinal marijuana case? Seems like they are the nuts for backing judicial nominees that issue rulings they hate.
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.