(merged) Supreme Court OKs personal property seizures

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf

Is this what you are looking for??

Precisely, thanks SN73.

[Predicto]

Whether or not you agree with this decision, it is not that big a change in the law. Eminent domain for redevelopment is nothing new, even where the redevelopment will be commercial.

The only issue this really answers is whether courts have the right to weigh the underlying need for a revitalization project, or whether that is the job of local officials alone.

These news stories are highly misleading and inflammatory.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Larry

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.

No, the city will pay you what the court says the property is worth.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Predicto

No, the city will pay you what the court says the property is worth.

The courts construction of the cost will be a balance between the valuations proposed by the experts of the opposing sides. Just like valuation in any case.

[chomerics]

I'd like to read the dissenting opinions and the ruling before I pass judgement. On the surface, it appears as if this is a land giveaway for private developers, not a good position to be in. Previously, and maybe I'm wrong here, eminent domain cases could only be used for public property ie. transportation, park etc. I did not know the city could seize properties based on private influence.

I am aslo suprised by the rulings as it is close to opposite as I would have expected the vote.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Predicto

These news stories are highly misleading and inflammatory.

Yep. As I wrote before, read the opinion before you express your outrage. Here is part of what the court actually said:

Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future "use by the public" is the purpose of the taking; the condemnation of land for a railroad with common-carrier duties is a familiar example. Neither of these propositions, however, determines the disposition of this case.

As for the first proposition, the City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners' land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. See Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245 ("A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void"); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403 (1896). Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. The takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a "carefully considered" development plan.

[...] Without exception, our cases have defined ["public purpose"] concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field... This "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public."

This might be the case that redman was referring to as discussed by this decision:

In Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), this Court upheld a redevelopment plan targeting a blighted area of Washington, D. C., in which most of the housing for the area's 5,000 inhabitants was beyond repair. Under the plan, the area would be condemned and part of it utilized for the construction of streets, schools, and other public facilities. The remainder of the land would be leased or sold to private parties for the purpose of redevelopment, including the construction of low-cost housing. The owner of a department store located in the area challenged the condemnation, pointing out that his store was not itself blighted and arguing that the creation of a better balanced, more attractive community was not a valid public use. Id., at 31. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Douglas refused to evaluate this claim in isolation, deferring instead to the legislative and agency judgment that the area must be planned as a whole for the plan to be successful. Id., at 34. The Court explained that community redevelopment programs need not, by force of the Constitution, be on a piecemeal basislot by lot, building by building. Id., at 35. The public use underlying the taking was unequivocally affirmed:

We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. . . . The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nations Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way. Id., at 33.

---

Also relevant is fn 6 from the majority opinion: "The record clearly demonstrates that the development plan was not intended to serve the interests of Pfizer, Inc., or any other private entity, but rather, to revitalize the local economy by creating temporary and permanent jobs, generating a significant increase in tax revenue, encouraging spin-off economic activities and maximizing public access to the waterfront"

[Predicto]

Hmmm. Courts deferring to legislative judgments. Isn't that what people say they want more of?

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Predicto

Hmmm. Courts deferring to legislative judgments. Isn't that what people say they want more of?

That was a conclusion I was hoping Kilmer would make...especially given the context in which that comment is couched.

[chomerics]

Well, after reading the opinions and the law, it appears as if the SCOTUS got it right.

This land IS for the benifit of the community, and it is legal to take the land under eminent domain. You may not agree with the law, but that is not the SCOTUS's duty, it is to determine the law and how it applies to the case. They did get it right, and they did interpret the law correctly.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by chomerics

Well, after reading the opinions and the law, it appears as if the SCOTUS got it right.

This land IS for the benifit of the community, and it is legal to take the land under eminent domain. You may not agree with the law, but that is not the SCOTUS's duty, it is to determine the law and how it applies to the case. They did get it right, and they did interpret the law correctly.

You read 56 pages mighty quick.

[chomerics]

Just as a side note, there was a huge eminent domain law in Boston in the 50's which wiped out an entire neighbourhood. They paid the owners $1 for their land and bulldozed it. It went to court, and of cours, the owners won, but their houses were gone and the city ended up paying through the nose for it.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by iheartskins

You read 56 pages mighty quick.

I read through the first 10 or so, then I read the Kennedy opinion followed by the dissenting opinion from O"Conner and Thomas.

I think they got it right, as the dissenting opinion was on the use of the language "for public use". Even though when this court case was brought to trial, Pfizer was not involved, they became involved after and agreed to build a $300 million dollar facility on city owned land, which they will lease. It is not a simple land giveaway from A to B as the dissenters infer, but in fact a more complex deal where the city will binifit greatly. The parcel of land on 4A is for a park, so there should be no available dissent as the lower court ruled, they in fact split up the case into two groups, the people on parcel 3 and the ones on 4A. They ruled differently, the Conn. Supreme Court ruled in favor of both, as did the SCOTUS. I think when three courts rule on one side of the argument, then that side is usually right when it comes to interperting the law.

I don't agree with the law, but their decision was correct in interperting the law.

[redman]

Originally posted by Riggo-toni

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.

You're essentially correct, although technically the explanation for this re-examination of the law by the court is due to the fact that the working definition of "blight" has expanded outward from what it was thought to be.

The modern USSC case to look at is Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954). This court was essentially reexamining the Berman decision in light of this case, and found that New London's actions fell within the rule established by Berman.

Again, on personal grounds, I disagree, but that's the factual explanation of what happened.

FYI - I've practiced eminent domain law out here in CA for the last two-plus years, so I've been paying attention to this.

*EDIT* - I just saw iheartskins post. He's correct obviously. It was the Berman decision I was referring to.

[iheartskins]

I agree with you chom about the interpretation. As the precedent provides in the opinion, the law has come to favor projects that may invovle private development, but are primarily aimed at serving the public good. Reasonable people can differ on the meaning of "public good" as is clear from the majority and dissenting opinions in this case. However, as the standard was enunciated in USSC precedent, these facts seemed to fall within what has come to be constitutionally acceptable.

Now, with that said, what could pass judicial muster in future cases as a "public good" is the scary part. That's where the conflicts of interest and arbitary rulings could overwhelm the standard--it's the classic slippery slope that I've heard so much about the last three years. But this is the risk with any fact intensive legal test...

In any case, I didn't mean to offend with my comment, I just meant to give you a bit of a hard time. When I read and quoted the opinion, I did the same thing.

[redman]

Originally posted by chomerics

I read through the first 10 or so, then I read the Kennedy opinion followed by the dissenting opinion from O"Conner and Thomas.

I think they got it right, as the dissenting opinion was on the use of the language "for public use". Even though when this court case was brought to trial, Pfizer was not involved, they became involved after and agreed to build a $300 million dollar facility on city owned land, which they will lease. It is not a simple land giveaway from A to B as the dissenters infer, but in fact a more complex deal where the city will binifit greatly. The parcel of land on 4A is for a park, so there should be no available dissent as the lower court ruled, they in fact split up the case into two groups, the people on parcel 3 and the ones on 4A. They ruled differently, the Conn. Supreme Court ruled in favor of both, as did the SCOTUS. I think when three courts rule on one side of the argument, then that side is usually right when it comes to interperting the law.

I don't agree with the law, but their decision was correct in interperting the law.

You can make a plausible argument that they "followed the law", but I think you can make at least an equally plausible argument that they expanded it.

Traditionally "blight" has meant that a private property owner, or more often a group of them, has property that is so run down that it is negatively affecting the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. I would argue that they've now expanded with this ruling "blight" to mean that even where there is no negative effect, a city may condemn property if they believe that they have a "better" use for the property.

As there is no theoretical limit to the ability to "better" a property through redevelopment, this places IMHO no effective limit upon public entities' power of eminent domain. It's scary and un-American. And I say this despite the fact that the greater the eminent domain power, the better my business as an eminent domain attorney.

[Rocky21]

Looks like we have some lawyers on the board. I'm not one of them.

I hope you all feel the Court made the “right” decision when they kick your grandparents out of the only home they’ve ever known to make way for a parking lot for a Pfizer office park. Cause that’s what happened to some folks in America today.

[luckydevil]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

High court OKs personal property seizures

Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)

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.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

-------------------------------------

Sigh

[iheartskins]

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104726

[luckydevil]

my bad

already posted

[iheartskins]

What many people don't understand is that real property rights are NOT absolute--they are often referred to as a "bundle of rights" such as the right to control use, take benefits from the property, transfer or sell, and exclude other people. Unlike personal property, you own property at the mercy of the state and this has been true since the beginning of the common law in England.

[Predicto]

I love this thread. Especially all of the knee jerk reactions at the beginning of the thread. Well those guys popped in, said their piece based on what they heard on Rush, and now they are gone for good. No sign of them now that people have read the actual opinion and are discussing what it really says and means.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by Chief skin

BIG BUSINESS COMES FIRST, Bush should love this decision

It's how he got the ballpark at Arlington built!

He also turned his initial 600k investment into between 10 and 15 million.

Gives new meaning to the term "free enterprise."

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf

Is this what you are looking for??

how can you read that, it is illegible when photoshop opens it up

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Liberty

how can you read that, it is illegible when photoshop opens it up

It worked fine for me. Try using Acrobat instead.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

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"

Because liberals don't respect property rights and have no clue what the Constitution says, so they are very easily swayed by arguments for "reducing economic blight" even if it means stealing people's homes....TO GIVE TO OTHER PRIVATE ENTITIES.

That was NEVER the intent of eminent domain.

Can't blame the conservatives on this one, fellaz. Souter, Ruth Bader, that asshat Stevens.