Supreme Court: Homes can be seized

[SupperClub 0]

Link

High court OKs personal property seizures

Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," 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."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

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 should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," 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.

I do not agree with this decision AT ALL. Eminent domain I can maybe, just maybe, understand, as long as the property being seized is for highways or interstates and the property owner is compensated fairly. For a government to come and seize your property because they want to build a new Wal-Mart, shopping mall, hotel, etc. on your land, now that's just wrong, IMO.

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

This same issue has been on the radar in either Bessemer, Helena, or Pelham in the suburbs of Birmingham. In this case, the city was using the iminent domain argument for land for a new Wal-Mart, citing the tax revenue for the city as the reason they had the imminent domain rights.

A total crock, if you ask me.

[Piglet 0]

OK, everybody outa your houses. Mr. Moneybags spent five million to get me elected, and now I'm showing my appreciation by letting him build a stadium or a Winn-Dixie or a--well, actually, I don't know what he's gonna build, but it don't matter. There's a huge public need for it, whatever it is. The sheriff'll be along to escort you out shortly. I'm off to cut my contributors' taxes again.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

I agree with you, Known.

The SC messed this one up, imo...the "public use" part of eminent domain shouldn't have been interpreted as "allowing for-profit businesses." The worst part to me is this:

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

That is total BS.

There are times when broad interpretation is preferred, but this part of the Fifth Amendment wasn't one of them.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Before you guys say "well thats capitalism..." its not.

Capitalism:

Guy owns house and land worth 200k. Walmart wants him to move...walmart gives guy 1,000,000 to make it worth his while.

Facism:

Guy owns house and land worth 200k. Walmart is a whiney baby and goes crying to "big brother". "Big brother" tells guy he's gotta go and gives him 125k for his troubles.

Guys this is just laziness from big time corps. Instead of having to pay 100million for paying off 100 people to move...they pay 100 mill to one person via a lobbyist.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

"...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."

--Abraham Lincoln

Rather prophetic. Capitalism abused and turned into yet another weapon against the individual.

[channonc 466]

I absolutely and totally disagree with the SC. The last thing we need to do is give corporations and local governments the power to now tell people where they can and cannot live all in the name of the almighty $$$.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

This is a travesty. But before you start going off bashing the big corporations alone, please note the particular political bent of the majority of the justices who voted for this - most were LIBERAL appointees. This really surprises me on one hand, as they usually do not favor big business. On the other hand, it makes perfect send, as this is socialism at its finest. Take away what people worked hard for all their lives, for the "greater common good".

Heads need to ROLL for this, I tell you. Anyone on a town or city council who allows this to happen should be voted off in the next election.

[SupperClub 0]

Heads need to ROLL for this, I tell you.  Anyone on a town or city council who allows this to happen should be voted off in the next election.

165450[/snapback]

I agree 100%. Luckily there aren't any cases of this even being attempted around my area, but if it ever does, the only way to ensure the collective voices of outrage to be heard is at the ballot box, be it a Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.

[Piglet 0]

This is a travesty.  But before you start going off bashing the big corporations alone, please note the particular political bent of the majority of the justices who voted for this - most were LIBERAL appointees.  This really surprises me on one hand, as they usually do not favor big business.  On the other hand, it makes perfect send, as this is socialism at its finest.  Take away what people worked hard for all their lives, for the "greater common good". 

Heads need to ROLL for this, I tell you.  Anyone on a town or city council who allows this to happen should be voted off in the next election.

165450[/snapback]

Yeah, I noticed which judges were for this, and that the Scalia wing went against it. Surprised me, too. And it sure looked like a "conservative" decision to me, letting the corporations screw the little guy like that--but if calling it "liberal" is what it takes to get people to call it wrong, then whatever.

This is maybe the first time I've seen just about everyone agreeing about something on this board. What the heck were those judges thinking?

My home is my castle. Don't tread on me.

[Auburn85 432]

This is happening in Montgomery. Now a 3rd super wal-mart will be built.

I think off of ann street

[MDM4AU 336]

Extremely poor decision by the Supreme Court!

[Tiger in Spain 0]

This is a travesty.  But before you start going off bashing the big corporations alone, please note the particular political bent of the majority of the justices who voted for this - most were LIBERAL appointees.  This really surprises me on one hand, as they usually do not favor big business.  On the other hand, it makes perfect send, as this is socialism at its finest.  Take away what people worked hard for all their lives, for the "greater common good".  

Heads need to ROLL for this, I tell you.  Anyone on a town or city council who allows this to happen should be voted off in the next election.

165450[/snapback]

Yeah, I noticed which judges were for this, and that the Scalia wing went against it. Surprised me, too. And it sure looked like a "conservative" decision to me, letting the corporations screw the little guy like that--but if calling it "liberal" is what it takes to get people to call it wrong, then whatever.

This is maybe the first time I've seen just about everyone agreeing about something on this board. What the heck were those judges thinking?

My home is my castle. Don't tread on me.

165456[/snapback]

Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer - the Court's liberals - voted to uphold the taking, while O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented. I don't see how the ideological lineup could be clearer. Who's looking out for you?

[WarTim 3,457]

The American people know what the teddy kennedy's of the world are all about. That is why john kerry was vetoed by the people and that is why hitlary will suffer the same fate. We are winning more and more every single day!

[SLAG-91 1,483]

Geez-o-pete...this has nothing to do with Ted Kennedy...or John Kerry...or Hillary Clinton. I don't believe any one of the three wrote an opinion.

As an FYI offered with minimal commentary, three of the five justices in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents, albeit three different ones:

* John Paul Stevens--appointed by Gerald Ford (1975)

* Anthony Kennedy--appointed by Ronald Reagan (1988)

* David Souter--appointed by George H.W. Bush (1989)

Kennedy and O'Connor have long been considered the moderate/swing votes of the court...O'Connor went one way on this, Kennedy the other.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

This is a travesty.  But before you start going off bashing the big corporations alone, please note the particular political bent of the majority of the justices who voted for this - most were LIBERAL appointees.  This really surprises me on one hand, as they usually do not favor big business.  On the other hand, it makes perfect send, as this is socialism at its finest.  Take away what people worked hard for all their lives, for the "greater common good". 

Heads need to ROLL for this, I tell you.  Anyone on a town or city council who allows this to happen should be voted off in the next election.

165450[/snapback]

Several states have laws preventing this. More probably will now.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Geez-o-pete...this has nothing to do with Ted Kennedy...or John Kerry...or Hillary Clinton.  I don't believe any one of the three wrote an opinion.

As an FYI offered with minimal commentary, three of the five justices in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents, albeit three different ones:

* John Paul Stevens--appointed by Gerald Ford (1975)

* Anthony Kennedy--appointed by Ronald Reagan (1988)

* David Souter--appointed by George H.W. Bush (1989)

Kennedy and O'Connor have long been considered the moderate/swing votes of the court...O'Connor went one way on this, Kennedy the other.

165539[/snapback]

Okay, so I will revise my previous statement - I should have done my homework. They were not appointed by liberals, but is it any wonder that I thought I was correct in my belief that they were appointed by liberals? They have ALL turned out to be increedibly liberal - Steven especially - he is ATROCIOUS!! He and Ruthie like to consider international law for determining US court cases, so I guess he took a page from the former Soviet Union on this one.

This is from Boortz. This has been a major hot button issue for him and he has some great commentary on this one.

Now ... is there a bright side?  Is there anything good in the ruling?  Yes, there is, and this is where you come in.  Even though the Supremes approved these government confiscations of private property, the five justices who voted with the majority did say that they didn't like it.  They encouraged local jurisdictions to pass laws severely restricting these seizures. There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law.  Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida.  If your state is not on this list, it's time for a little political activism. Start the movement now.  Let your legislators know that you want your private property rights restored, and that your decisions on election day will be governed by their willingness to act to preserve your rights. 

The Supreme Court decision is a horrible blow to private property rights.  Whether or not it is a death-blow will be up to you.

What can you do? Visit Institute For Justice & the Castle Coalition. There is also a blog that focuses on eminent domain issues.

[Tigermike 3,053]

I posted this article Feb 28 2005, 12:50 AM warning you guys of this and no one took notice.

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...81entry148581

The pirates of eminent domain

Jeff Jacoby

February 28, 2005

Beginning his oral argument in Kelo v. City of New London, the Connecticut eminent-domain case the Supreme Court took up last week, Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice puts the stakes bluntly:

    “Every home, church, or corner store would produce more jobs and tax revenue if it were a Costco or a shopping mall,” he says. If state and local governments can force a property owner to surrender his land so it can be given to a new owner who will put it to more lucrative use, no home or shop in America will ever be safe again.

    That’s just what New London wants to do to Bullock’s clients, the seven remaining homeowners in the city’s working-class section of Fort Trumbull. When Pfizer, the big pharmaceutical firm, announced in 1998 that it would build a $300 million research facility nearby, the city decided to raze Fort Trumbull’s modest homes and shops so they could be replaced with more expensive properties: offices, upscale condos, a luxury hotel. Its master plan called for turning the land over to a private developer, in the expectation that it would "complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, [and] increase tax and other revenues."

    But can the government kick people out of their homes or businesses simply to make way for new development?

    Under the Bill of Rights, the power of eminent domain may be used only when land is needed for a public use. “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,” the Fifth Amendment commands.  A school, a post office, a right of way for a railroad -- those are the kinds of public uses for which property owners have traditionally been made to relinquish their land.

    But that isn’t why New London wants to tear down the 112-year-old Victorian that Susette Kelo worked so hard to renovate, or the house at Walbach and East streets where Wilhelmina Dery has lived for all of her 87 years. The city doesn’t want their land for a public facility or a new road. It simply wants the expanded tax base and economic growth that will come with new development. Can that be what the Constitution means by “public use” -- the trickle-down benefits of private use?

    Once, Supreme Court justices would have given short shrift to such a claim.

    "The despotic power . . . of taking private property when state necessity requires, exists in every government," Justice William Paterson wrote in a 1795 case, Vanhorn's Lessee v. Dorrance, but the state must not invoke that power "except in urgent cases." He could not imagine any situation that would justify "the seizing of landed property belonging to one citizen, and giving it to another citizen. . . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature . . . can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another?" 

    But there is no echo of Paterson's spirited defense of property rights as the justices consider Fort Trumbull.

    When Bullock argues that New London wants to throw people out of their homes for the sake of ordinary economic development, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks why that's a problem. New London is depressed, she says; what's wrong with trying to "build it up and get more jobs?"  If the city could buy property on the open market and turn it over to a developer, wonders Justice David Souter, why can't it use eminent domain to achieve the same end? Justice Stephen Breyer notes that there is bound to be some public benefit  from almost any land taking. Isn't that enough to satisfy the Constitution's "public use" requirement?

    It is a depressing colloquy for anyone who believes that property rights are fundamental to liberty. But there is worse to come. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presses Wesley Horton, the lawyer for New London, on whether eminent domain can really be deployed to condemn any property that could be put to better use. 

    "For example, a Motel 6," O'Connor says. "A city thinks, 'If we had a Ritz-Carlton, we'd get higher taxes.' Is that OK?"

    "Yes, that's OK," Horton replies.

    Justice Antonin Scalia: "You can take from A and give it to B, if B pays more in taxes?"

    Horton: "Yes, if it's a significant amount."

    Got that? Anyone's property can be taken by eminent domain if the government believes another owner would use it to earn a higher profit. New London isn't alone in making such an outrageous claim. In planning commissions and redevelopment authorities nationwide, the Fifth Amendment's "public use" requirement has been ignored for years. The question now is whether five Supreme Court justices will agree to kill off this piece of the Bill of Rights for good, or to bring it back to life. The fate of more than just seven Connecticut homeowners is riding on their decision.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjac...j20050228.shtml

148581[/snapback]

[LegalEagle 22]

Jenny, "liberal" relates to liberty as in individual freedoms. It relates to strong individual rights and weak governmental controls. If someone wants to keep their house, it is not government's right to force them to sell. If someone decides to have an abortion, it is not for the government to interfere. If someone wants to carry a fetus full term, it is not for government to decide. If someone wants to smoke pot and the other prefers wine, so be it.

I can only assume the justices have been smokin' something to come up with this decision. Now, if someone wants a cause deserving of a constitutional amendment, this is it.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Jenny, "liberal" relates to liberty as in individual freedoms.  It relates to strong individual rights and weak governmental controls.  If someone wants to keep their house, it is not government's right to force them to sell.  If someone decides to have an abortion, it is not for the government to interfere.  If someone wants to carry a fetus full term, it is not for government to decide.  If someone wants to smoke pot and the other prefers wine, so be it.

I can only assume the justices have been smokin' something to come up with this decision.  Now, if someone wants a cause deserving of a constitutional amendment, this is it.

165645[/snapback]

Why is it then that the "liberals" seems to always look for more and larger government? They look for the government to be the instrument of pushing their ideas? The old saying, "There has never been a tax that the liberals didn't want. There has never been a government bureaucracy that the liberals didn't want to be larger.", is true thru and thru.

PS - Legal, I like your picture of Shug. I spent many Sunday afternoons watching his show. Along with the Baar's show.

[CCTAU 3,344]

This definitely comes down to pure greed. I can see if you own land and do not keep it up and the town wnats it gone. Then the onus is on you totake care of your business. If not, then the city, or whoever, will take care of it for you.

For the SC to come up with this decision is the first thing I thought of when I heard of it.....SOCIALISM at its finest.

I'm thinking there will be much outrage and probably a few dead officials in the future. When you take people's life work from them, they have no hope. And without hope comes dire frustration.

Like the man said, you can vote the bad guys out of office. But guess what? If it happens to you, you still don't get your land back.

America is better than this.

[LegalEagle 22]

TigerMike,

It's not the liberals who have overspent like drunken sailors. How has the Federal Government shrunk under Bush?

Thanks for the comment on the Shug pic. I've tried for months to get it to work, and DKW helped me. I don't recognize the host though. Apparently that was before Carl Stevens. Do you know who he is?

[Tigermike 3,053]

TigerMike,

It's not the liberals who have overspent like drunken sailors.  How has the Federal Government shrunk under Bush?

Thanks for the comment on the Shug pic.  I've tried for months to get it to work, and DKW helped me.  I don't recognize the host though.  Apparently that was before Carl Stevens.  Do you know who he is?

165688[/snapback]

There is no doubt that spending has been almost out of control during GW's terms. Some is easy to understand and much is very hard to understand why nothing has been done to correct the problem.

But on the whole in general there is no way around the fact that "There has never been a tax that the liberals and dems didn't want and like. There has never been a government bureaucracy that the liberals and dems didn't want to be larger and more cumbersome."

[Piglet 0]

But on the whole in general there is no way around the fact that  "There has never been a tax that the liberals and dems didn't want and like. There has never been a government bureaucracy that the liberals and dems didn't want to be larger and more cumbersome."

165716[/snapback]

You mean, other than that said "fact" is utterly false?

Have some seed corn to go with your straw man. You've sure spread enough fertilizer for it.

[Tigermike 3,053]

But on the whole in general there is no way around the fact that  "There has never been a tax that the liberals and dems didn't want and like. There has never been a government bureaucracy that the liberals and dems didn't want to be larger and more cumbersome."

165716[/snapback]

You mean, other than that said "fact" is utterly false?

Have some seed corn to go with your straw man. You've sure spread enough fertilizer for it.

165724[/snapback]

BS, aside, if you are insinuating that libs & dems are and have been fiscally responsible and work for smaller more efficient government, back it up and provide facts.