Support NeoGAF

[midnightguy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301067_pf.html

washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 5:11 PM

WASHINGTON -- Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.

The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on Monday.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing _ David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.

At least eight states _ Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington _ forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "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."

Connecticut resident Susette Kelo and others in the lawsuit pledged to continue their fight. Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."

New London once was a center for the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

 

[Hitokage]

Gaffers still cannot seize search.

 

[Cold-Steel]

 

[Xenon]

At least eight states _ Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington _ forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.

There was a recent story about a guy who is going to loose his bike shop to make way for a condo development. They are trying to say that the store is blighted? WTF I think the law makers of Illinois used the bible as a inspiration when they wrote that law.

blight makes right

Total bullshit.

 

[bishoptl]

I just finished reading this over at the Washington Post and was going to make a thread. Ya beat me to it. How are you people not up in arms over this? Some company can make an offer to your local government, kick you out of your home and that's that?

Activist judges indeed.

 

[akascream]

Haven't they always been able to force you out to build stuff, as long as they paid you whatever your property is worth? Maybe that was only for building roads or government type stuff.

which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use

I guess that depends on how you define public use. I'd consider public traffic for retail business to be private business use, but maybe they define public use as the money generated by the 'transaction', as long as it is used for the public or something lol.

 

[Forgotten_Taco]

Batman does not approve.

 

[ronito]

Gaffers still cannot seize search.

Hitokage my friend I think you were too subtle.

Let me translate:
OLD!

http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=52856

 

[belgurdo]

Haven't they always been able to force you out to build stuff, as long as they paid you whatever your property is worth?

We're having a situation like that in our neighborhood (a section of Ethel Avenue is being demolished to make way for a strip mall,) but since we're in a poor black neighborhood not many are going to shed tears for us. Makes me wish people cared more about their community so that companies wouldn't come knocking in the first place

 

[akascream]

http://pictures.greatestjournal.com/userimg/3698196/243077

Lol.

 

[akascream]

We're having a situation like that in our neighborhood (a section of Ethel Avenue is being demolished to make way for a strip mall,) but since we're in a poor black neighborhood not many are going to shed tears for us. Makes me wish people cared more about their community so that companies wouldn't come knocking in the first place

IMO, they ought to make it really worth your while, like take the value of the property and multiply it by 2. How invasive for that to ever happen to anyone. Hope you don't get forced out of your home.

 

[Odoul]

I think honestly, more than one person will be killed as a a result of the action this ruling allows.

 

[midnightguy]

the fucking cunts that dare to take over the private property of good people must be crushed.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

Our governemnt is the coolest reality show on TV!

 

[olimario]

5th ammendment done for
They can take it with just compinsation for public use, but not for other private use.
Supreme Court IS corrupt.

 

[WedgeX]

Justice O'Connor put it well:

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108#dissent1

 

[BlackClouds]

These cities in return, should be forced to pay a premium, of let's say, 35% over market value for the homes and land. That would be more fair.

 

[Space Age Playboy]

Good. It's about time they made it so some guy in a shack can't stop developers from building projects that will improve the city and help the economy.

 

[Red Scarlet]

wtf?

 

[sonicfan]

We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

 

[lexy]

I wholeheartedly approve of this ruling.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Something about this inherently rubs me the wrong way. It already happens all over America with local government and utility companies taking little chunks of land here and there. But this idea of "economic prosperity" is such a vague term. It can really be abused by corrupt local governments. I'm sure we will see alot of challenges to this law in years to come.

 

[Gattsu25]

I just finished reading this over at the Washington Post and was going to make a thread. Ya beat me to it. How are you people not up in arms over this? Some company can make an offer to your local government, kick you out of your home and that's that?

It's always been like this...I know of an entire prodominately minority area in the city right near where I live (10 minute drive at the most) that had this same shit happen to them around five years ago. A development company is now planning on using the land to build expensive homes in several gated communities...the city council let it happen despite around a hundred of the people from that neighborhood showing up at one of the city council meetings

People won't make THAT a big stink out of it because it's not new. Imminent Domain just shows the the golden rule is still in effect: whoever has the gold makes the rules

 

[Tritroid]

From what I've heard, the majority of votes approving this came from the democratic/liberal judges.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Yes this has been happening before, but the Supreme Court ruling on it, makes it legal. It took until now for someone to challenge it all the way up to this level. Now that the court has ruled on it, it has, in effect, been green lighted. This is a very scary prospect, imho.

And yes, the judges who really ram-rodded this through were the more liberal judges.

 

[sol5377]

Corrupt government and capitalistic scum giving you a hard time???

You know who to call...

 

[shantyman]

My Courtnet Love=Fat past got immediately locked but not this one? These were both on page 1.

http://new.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=52856

 

[UltraMarioMan]

This topic made me remember this...

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning
office for the last nine month."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them,
yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call
attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or
anything."
"But the plans were on display..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a
locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door
saying Beware of the Leopard."

 

[LakeEarth]

This whole "domain" thing actually happened in my city up in Windsor Ontario. Downtown there was some local businesses, including the last good arcade left in the entire damned town. Well in 99-2000 or so, newly formed Daimler-Chrysler decided they wanted to build an office building in that spot. Of course the city gave in and gave them the spot, destroying something like 20 small businesses including Fast Eddie's (they got compensation but really the property was in the perfect location, most of the business that moved folded in their new locations soon after).

So what happened to the building? Just after construction began, the car industry stalled and the money flow started to slow down. So they built the building only a bit over half at tall as planned (it was supposed to be the biggest building in our waterfront, instead it's just another building) and its barely even used. They don't even want it anymore.