Riggo-toni Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I personally find this downright TERRIFYING and SICKENING!! Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 7 minutes ago WASHINGTON - 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 now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order 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, Conn., 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. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property;_ylt=AtKldy7qNPU866ZNHTlmlrKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I never thought they would pass it: There is not a single thing you cant claim under imminent domain and the betterment of all... Nothing... Again.. Freedom is last and Strip mall is more important than the 52 year old houses .... What a horrible decision... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyansRangers Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I was just reading the same thing.. I find this outrageous how a local government can take away your home.. Thats Bull.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Wow. I hope Stevens retires soon so the court can gain a proper right leaning majority to prevent this kind of nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mufumonk Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 This is very frightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 :doh: What a horrible decision. Opens the door to corruption at the expense of home owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyansRangers Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 why should we pay all these prop taxes if we dont even have rights to the home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Can someone post a link to the opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 BIG BUSINESS COMES FIRST, Bush should love this decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I couldn't disagree more with the court's decision. This decision is not what the 5th Amendment was intended for. This is eminent domain for the gain of the PRIVATE sector - not for a school, a highway or a firehouse. This is the worst kind of government involvement in people's lives. Wrong wrong wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Before I pass judgment I want to read the decision. For the reasons andyman's thread in the FexEx forum indentifies, I think you guys should reserve judgment until you've read what the opinion actually says. That's why I'm still looking for a link. I haven't been able to find one as of yet. FWIW, this is the summary of the case, and notice the narrow-ness of the issue to be decided: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1799/ Facts of the Case New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London. Question Presented Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city's bad economy? Just so it's clear, I don't agree with this decision at least to the extent that it's been reported thus far in the traditional media outlets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Guys, this has been the law for more than 50 years. All they did was reaffirm the old rule. Do I agree with it? No. But that's what they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by redman Guys, this has been the law for more than 50 years. All they did was reaffirm the old rule. Do I agree with it? No. But that's what they did. Is this an outgrowth of the teleprompter case? What's the seminal case that established this rule for private takings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Agh this and statist marijuana decision have destroyed my confidence in this court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Chief skin BIG BUSINESS COMES FIRST, Bush should love this decision i thought the more coservative of the judges dissented? AND: this isnt political for the people.. this is their home. If you could give me a reason why they couldnt take your house as a City Council gone mad let me know... Shula's / Gas Station on the corner / More Parkland for the people... etc. etc.. etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by redman Guys, this has been the law for more than 50 years. All they did was reaffirm the old rule. Do I agree with it? No. But that's what they did. It's been law for 50 years that they can seize property for private development? Hmmmm...never knew that. Several years ago my town wanted to buy some of my property to put in a softball field next to the new high school. IF they had made a fair offer I would have gladly turned it over to them - their offer was $18K for one acre of land. Even before this latest real estate boom that was a very low price in this area...but they acted like it was more than fair. I said no deal. ...now they can come in and say "we're taking the land...you only pay a total of $4K per year in taxes and we're going to put in a corporate office complex that will generate hundreds of thousands in taxes. Sorry, you lose buddy". ...there was corruption in our local gov't before this decision...I bet they are licking their chops now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I can envision a lot of people going postal over this ... and rightly so. Our Forefathers must be turning over in their graves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 The way the Supreme Dorks have acted lately, they probably looked to see how foreign countries deal with their property owners and ruled from that. Time for term limits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by redman Guys, this has been the law for more than 50 years. All they did was reaffirm the old rule. Do I agree with it? No. But that's what they did. As I understand it, the previous expansion of emminent domain that has been the law for the past several decades was that gov't could take homes for development in cases where homes/neighborhoods had decayed to the point of being "blighted." Essentially, slums and ghettos could be demolished to make way for better housing as part of urban renewal. In this case, nothing was wrong or "blighted" with the houses/neighborhood in question. The local gov't made a financial decision based on the fact that they could generate more tax revenue from office buildings. Essentially, the most corrupt level of gov't -municipal - now has the authority to become omnipotent real estate developers, whilst homeowners rights have dwindled to those of serfs; we're paying a massive portion of our income to our taskmasters (aka the gov't), which has the right to uproot and evict us at their whim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Interesting break down Renquist Scalia and Thomas all dissenting. Looks like the more "liberal" members of the court here sold out to big business and increasing powers to the gov't in the name of "public goods" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Before a lot of you freak out you need to understand the process in developing land. This is a long process and the COMMUNITY is involved, they just don't show up. When you pass and APR (Area Plan Review) you have to have the consent of the people to do it. A great example is here in the DC area. They are doing a revitalization of some parts of Arlington that have been run down for years. In this process it was decided that some old apartments and homes needed to be torn down. The county will then show all of the designs and findings and announce to everyone where the meeting is and what time. They even mail you a specific letter telling you if you are in that area, and as long as your info is accurate with the county you will get it. If the decision is past on a taking an old home down then that person will be paid for what it is worth, they give you market/assesment value. Most if you think they just come in and tear it up and tell you nothing, for those please learn more about what your local government does and don't jump to conclusions. For those locals this was done for all the major road projects and all the revitalzing projects going on. The next large ones will be Tysons Corner and Lake Anne in Reston, learn about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 The question in this case really about how closely courts should scrutinize government's purpose for public taking. SCOTUS has never really articulated the necessary conditions of public taking for subsequent private use (blighted area is one example, but SCOTUS also permitted use of eminent domain to settle down a serious real estate problem in Hawaii). The broad stroke is that public taking for subsequent private use is permitted under constitution where the purpose (either primary or significant, they still haven't decided that it looks like) is to benefit the public (even if such benefit is purely economical), but such taking is not permitted if the purported benefit to the public is merely incidental and the true purpose is to benefit a private party (Pfizer and Corcoran Jennison in this case). The issue then, is whether the challenged taking is to benefit the public or whether such benefit is merely incidental. Obviously the Gov't will claim the former. So, how strictly should the courts scrutinize such claim? It looks like the majority is applying a mere rational basis test, which I would argue is too weak for situations where the public purpose (or access) is not clear. I would much rather see the court act as some real road block in these limited situations where public taking is for subsequent private use and apply intermediate scrutiny. What is interesting is that Justice Kennedy actually seems to be leaning toward intermediate scrutiny, but settles on rational basis. I would not be surprised to see him going toward intermediate scrutiny in the future where a case shows stronger indicia private purpose. These types of eminent domain should act as the exception to traditional eminent domain cases, similar to how the Court treats due process cases with concern of impermissible bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I actually think this decision is more subtle than people make it out to be. The question is not whether city governments have the right to take land from their citizens so much as whether it is the federal governments responsibility to enforce that right. If a community decides that it does not want to protect this right then maybe it should be allowed to do so. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't rights that should be protected. There are. I'm just not sure that this is one of them. I'm also not sure this is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I think, if I'm representing the homeowners, I already know wher my next court filing will be. What will happen now is that the city (county?) will go to court, and get a "you don't own this land any more". The city will pay what the city thinks the property is worth. At that point, the property becomes city property. At that point, if the city wants it developed, that'll have to auction it to one or more developers. I think it'll be a safe bet that the auction price will be higher than what the city (with no competing bids) paid the owners. At that point, if I'm a displaced owner, I go to court, arguing that the auction established the fact that the value of my property was indeed higher that what the city argued, and I want the higher price. (I might even get together with the other displaced homeowners, and show up at the auction and bid on my confiscated property, (using the money the city paid me), just to drive up the cost that the developer has to pay to get the land he's stealing. (And, to drive up the price that I'm going to win, in court.)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by iheartskins Before I pass judgment I want to read the decision. For the reasons andyman's thread in the FexEx forum indentifies, I think you guys should reserve judgment until you've read what the opinion actually says. That's why I'm still looking for a link. I haven't been able to find one as of yet. http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf Is this what you are looking for?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.