(merged) Supreme Court OKs personal property seizures

[iheartskins]

Here's the take from the American Bar Association...

---

SUPREME COURT REINFORCES TAKINGS POWER

Justices Rule a Municipality May Seize Private Property to Help a Developer’s Project

http://www.abanet.org/abanet/common/print/printview.cfm?Ref=http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/jn24sct.html

BY JOHN GIBEAUT

Susette Kelo lost her tidy waterfront home, and New London, Conn., gained an upscale residential, retail and commercial development yesterday when the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly held that the city’s plan to seize homes from Kelo and her neighbors satisfied the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.

The 5-4 decision could greatly expand municipalities’ use of condemnation not only to clear away urban blight for economic development, but also to take well-kept homes and other property in still-viable neighborhoods for the same purpose. Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108.

"I think it’s a great victory for the people of New London, who are our clients," says city lawyer Daniel J. Krisch of Hartford. "Now an economic development program that has been on hold can go forward. And it’s a great victory for cities across the country."

The city embarked on the project in New London’s Fort Trumbull area after the area’s last major employer, the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center, closed in 1996, eliminating 1,500 jobs. For the Supreme Court majority, the case boiled down to the greater good against the interests of Kelo and eight of her neighbors, who had fought the plan for five years.

"Those who govern the city were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Joining Stevens were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor led the dissent, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The decision flowed from the court’s gradually expanding view of the takings clause over the last century. It’s an expansion that finally has gone way too far, O’Connor complained in the main dissent, suggesting the decision signals open season on homeowners.

"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," O’Connor wrote.

But careful planning and a $10 million bond issue the state floated toward creation of a park in the area also played significant roles in the outcome. The development would raze 115 homes and replace them with a waterfront conference hotel, restaurants, shops, marinas, rows of urban townhouses and an office park. Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. also plans a $300 million research facility on an adjacent site.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but by no means limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote. "As with other exercises in planning and urban development, the city is endeavoring to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential and recreational land uses with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts."

The court also reaffirmed that it intends to continue giving states wide latitude in justifying public uses for property condemned under the takings clause. Thus, the next fight looms in state courts, say lawyers for the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian public interest law firm that represents the homeowners.

"It’s a dark day for American homeowners," Institute senior attorney Dana Berliner said in a statement. "While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the right of every American, except the most politically connected. Every home, small business or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the court, that’s good enough reason for eminent domain."

Kelo and her neighbors, who own 15 of the homes in all, were the lone holdouts who fought the southeastern Connecticut city’s plan through the state justice system and on to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kelo and her husband, Tim, bought their pink Victorian in 1997. The Supreme Court majority noted that she has made extensive improvements to the home, which is near the point where the Thames River flows into Long Island Sound. One of Kelo’s neighbors, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her Fort Trumbull home in 1918 and has lived there all her life.

"There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area," Stevens wrote.

The majority also eschewed a hard-and-fast rule proposed by the homeowners that economic development does not qualify as a public use under the takings clause. That proposal is supported "neither by precedent nor logic," the court said.

Despite the ominous warnings coming from the Supreme Court dissenters and the homeowners’ lawyers, city lawyer Krisch predicts that dollars and political sense will act as checks on abuses.

"This is still public money," Krisch says. "Cities don’t become spendthrifts just because they can use eminent domain. They still have to pay for the property."

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by jbooma

Do you any clue at all what you are talking about here?????????????

The decision by the sumpreme court just backs the law that allows local governments to buy up land if needed to improve the cities, they didn't decide anything here they just let the law stand. This has been happening for a long time.

How do you think I-66 was built, this same law :doh:

JB,

I'd say I have more than a clue, but I think you're a bit lost here.

I-66 is taking private property for public works. This was the original intent of eminent domain. The decision by the court does NOT simply back up the existing law, it significantly expands it. Prior to this ruling, taking private land for private development was only allowed in "blighted" areas (slums) where neighborhoods and homes had been decayed to the point of adversely affecting the public good - essentially it was alicense for urban renewal. The homes and neighborhood in question here were well-maintained, typical suburban houses, but the city was strapped for tax revenue, and realized it could get more dollars from a commercial center than a handful of middle-class citizens. The ruling in effect gives local gov'ts free license to uproot anyone for any private enterprise it might arbitrarily deem as good for the public. Remember all those cheesy westerns where the stranger came to help out the lone settler family who was getting harassed out by the big ranchers. Now they can just pay (bribe) gov't officials to do it for them.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Riggo-toni

JB,

I'd say I have more than a clue, but I think you're a bit lost here.

I-66 is taking private property for public works. This was the original intent of eminent domain. The decision by the court does NOT simply back up the existing law, it significantly expands it. Prior to this ruling, taking private land for private development was only allowed in "blighted" areas (slums) where neighborhoods and homes had been decayed to the point of adversely affecting the public good - essentially it was alicense for urban renewal. The homes and neighborhood in question here were well-maintained, typical suburban houses, but the city was strapped for tax revenue, and realized it could get more dollars from a commercial center than a handful of middle-class citizens. The ruling in effect gives local gov'ts free license to uproot anyone for any private enterprise it might arbitrarily deem as good for the public. Remember all those cheesy westerns where the stranger came to help out the lone settler family who was getting harassed out by the big ranchers. Now they can just pay (bribe) gov't officials to do it for them.

However they still have to perform and APR for that area and have the community come and speak out. I think what happened here is the people did not get involved from the beginning, thus this is what happened.

Thanks I didn't know all the facts so didn't know the home in questioned was valuable.

Curious if in this development if new homes will go up and these people have the first choice in buying them. I highly doubt high middleclass people will walk away with nothing, they will get something in return, this isn't over yet.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by jbooma

However they still have to perform and APR for that area and have the community come and speak out. I think what happened here is the people did not get involved from the beginning, thus this is what happened.

Thanks I didn't know all the facts so didn't know the home in questioned was valuable.

Curious if in this development if new homes will go up and these people have the first choice in buying them. I highly doubt high middleclass people will walk away with nothing, they will get something in return, this isn't over yet.

Please, READ THE CASE before sharing your opinion. It answers all of these questions.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

What does the President have to do with this ruling?

You are starting to take some DU talking points here buddy

By Bushco I didn't mean just Bush the President, but also his supporters, the statist neocons.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by iheartskins

Please, READ THE CASE before sharing your opinion. It answers all of these questions.

I read what you posted:

Argued:

February 22, 2005

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?

And from this it doesn't get into detail about the situation. The other article you posted mentioned that they were the LONE people left, meaning the others had already accpeted what was given to them so they did get compensation.

If everyone of the 115 homes fought this then it would have never had a chance in court. The problem is when the majority made the decision to leave it left the others by themselves and they city can not bend over because of a few, when all the plans show this will help the city.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by jbooma

I read what you posted:

First, that's not the case, that's a brief summary about the case, not the case itself. This is the link to the actual case--and this is what I was suggesting you read.

Second, if you are going to read one of my posts about the case, I would suggest reading this one as it directly reflects the language the court used in the opinion.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by iheartskins

First, that's not the case, that's a brief summary about the case, not the case itself.

This is the link to the actual case--and this is what I was suggesting you read.

If you are going to read one of my posts about the case, I would suggest reading this one as it directly reflects the language the court used in the opinion.

Thanks for the post. I was referring to how a city decides to change land through and APR. I used to work with DPZ here in FFX was a part of the plans for the metro to Tysons and Dulles. In this process we had something similar come up, because of the land we needed.

I haven't read all of your posts because when I start reading some of the other posters it is the same crap.

I believe you are for this decision, and if I am correct if only 15 are fighting this out of 115 then this turned into a numbers game and there is no way the Supreme court is going to rule against what is best for the city if a few were fighting it.

[flyingtiger1013]

I think the decision is dead wrong. This smacks of medieval England. Take the property and give it to the Lords.

Well, I suppose we don’t REALLY own our property anymore. I can’t believe a government can force you our of your home and give it to someone else in the name of “greater community good”! Welcome to United Socialist States of Amerika.

[SkinsNut73]

Just as an FYI....

Local news is reporting the "fair and equitable" offers made to the homeowners.

Susette Kelo - $123,000 for one home.

Thelma Brolesky - $88,000 for one home.

James and Laura Guretsky - own 3 homes, compensation offer not available.

Patay Construction - $216,000 for 2 pieces of property.

Pasquale and Margherita Cristofaro - $150,000 for one home.

Charles and Wilhelmina Dory - $506,000 for four homes.

William von Winide - $638,000 for 3 homes (one of which is a 2 family).

.....and here is the chronology of events in this case...

Eminent Domain Chronology

Published on 6/24/2005

January 2000: The Planning and Zoning Commission, Redevelopment Agency, City Council and New London Development Corp. approve the Fort Trumbull development plan.

May 8, 2000: The NLDC votes to begin taking 11 properties by eminent domain.

Sept. 5, 2000: The City Council rescinds an earlier decision that prevented the NLDC from razing buildings in Parcel 4A where the city hopes a Coast Guard museum will be built.

Sept. 20, 2000: The Coalition to Save Fort Trumbull submits a petition with more than 400 signatures to the City Council to save Fort Trumbull homes from demolition.

Oct. 2, 2000: The city law director rules that a petition asking for a referendum on Fort Trumbull demolition is invalid.

October 2000: The NLDC votes to use eminent domain to acquire the last 22 properties it needs to transform the Fort Trumbull peninsula into a maritime village.

November 2000: The NLDC offers 11 property owners, including Susette Kelo and Matthew Dery, more than $2.7 million for their properties. They reject the offers.

Dec. 19, 2000: The Institute for Justice agrees to represent more than a half dozen Fort Trumbull residents in a lawsuit against the city and NLDC.

Feb. 21, 2001: The city, NLDC and property owners reach an agreement under which the Fort Trumbull residents will be able to stay in their homes while the eminent domain case is heard in court.

March 13, 2002: Connecticut Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Corradino rules on the eminent domain lawsuit. He upholds the taking of some houses but not others.

March 18, 2002: Fort Trumbull property owners announce they will file an appeal with the state Supreme Court.

August 2002: The city and NLDC file appeal briefs asking the state Supreme Court to overturn the lower court ruling.

October 2002: City Council grants the NLDC a two-year extension of its eminent domain powers in Fort Trumbull area.

December 2002: Connecticut Supreme Court hears arguments in the eminent domain case.

March 3, 2004: The Connecticut Supreme Court affirms the NLDC's right to take property at Fort Trumbull by a vote of 4 to 3.

July 19, 2004: The Institute for Justice files an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

July 30, 2004: The Michigan Supreme Court, relying solely on the state constitution, forbids the use of eminent domain for economic development.

Sept. 28, 2004: The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Kelo v. New London, the case that will determine whether governments can seize private property to promote economic development.

Feb. 22, 2005: The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Kelo v. New London.

June 23, 2005: The U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-4 that economic development is a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Link

[Leonard Washington]

no big deal....they been doing this for years. i have an aunt that lives on the eastern shore. the local gov tried to buy her land, but she didn't want to sell. so they rezoned it and forced her to either pay out the wazzo for taxes or sell to them at a lower figure. i don't remember what came of it though.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

Just as an FYI....

Local news is reporting the "fair and equitable" offers made to the homeowners.

Susette Kelo - $123,000 for one home.

Thelma Brolesky - $88,000 for one home.

James and Laura Guretsky - own 3 homes, compensation offer not available.

Patay Construction - $216,000 for 2 pieces of property.

Pasquale and Margherita Cristofaro - $150,000 for one home.

Charles and Wilhelmina Dory - $506,000 for four homes.

William von Winide - $638,000 for 3 homes (one of which is a 2 family).

Did they mentioned what is the value of the homes now?

Curious why the petition was called invalid? Was it because of fake signatures, like a Dc mayor we know

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by jbooma

I haven't read all of your posts because when I start reading some of the other posters it is the same crap.

I believe you are for this decision, and if I am correct if only 15 are fighting this out of 115 then this turned into a numbers game and there is no way the Supreme court is going to rule against what is best for the city if a few were fighting it.

You are wrong and this would have been evident had you taken the time to read my posts.

If you could have overcome your laziness and had the ability to differentiate between an evaluation of whether the court properly interpreted the existing standard and whether I believed the decision to be correct then my viewpoints would be painfully clear.

Here's an example:

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1448039#post1448039

I think you're right Larry and you're essentially putting forth the same arguments as the dissent.

A reasonable person could have read that single sentence and realized that I actually don't agree with the opinion. However, in the other posts discussing whether the court properly intrepted the law, I have said, and I stand by the fact, that the court properly interpreted the existing standard.

These are two different things, and if you'd like me to break this down for you further, then I can do it.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Liberty

By Bushco I didn't mean just Bush the President, but also his supporters, the statist neocons.

Once again, what in the hell does that have to do with this case in any respect?

[jbooma]

Originally posted by iheartskins

You are wrong and this would have been evident had you taken the time to read my posts.

If you could have overcome your laziness and had the ability to differentiate between an evaluation of whether the court properly interpreted the existing standard and whether I believed the decision to be correct then my viewpoints would be painfully clear.

Here's an example:

http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1448039#post1448039

A reasonable person could have read that single sentence and realized that I actually don't agree with the opinion. However, in the other posts discussing whether the court properly intrepted the law, I have said, and I stand by the fact, that the court properly interpreted the existing standard.

These are two different things, and if you'd like me to break this down for you further, then I can do it.

iheart you just said you agree with the court for interpreting the law (which we agree on, which is what the supreme court is supposed to do), then you say you don't personally agree with the decision, so now how are you against this, you can't be for or against at the same time, it is one or the other, unless you are like me where i feel bad for them but I do think the city and the court are doing what is right

it isn't laziness i just hate going through posts and everything is blamed on Bush when this has been happening for years

so where do you stand can the minority stand in a way of a city trying to do what is best to exist, and most likely if this center isn't built then the value of these homes will continue to fall, that is what this case is all about thats it, the rest of the homeowners jumped ship a while back, if all 115 stayed and took it to court then there would be no way the supreme court could rule in favor of the city, since the city would have to abandon the plans from the beginning, and it would have never gotten this far

please elaborate since now I am confused

and this does relate to the construction of I-66 since I lived in the neigborhood where they took the homes, and knew some that fought it in court

[SkinsHokieFan]

For our constituitonal scholars.

Doesn't this violate the 5th amendment? Reading through it, the 5th seems to only state for "public use"

Did the SCOTUS basically say public use is now the same as higher tax revenue?

[jbooma]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

For our constituitonal scholars.

Doesn't this violate the 5th amendment? Reading through it, the 5th seems to only state for "public use"

Did the SCOTUS basically say public use is now the same as higher tax revenue?

since the city is in need of revenue this will be for public use since all will be able to use it

now if they took the land and opened a private golf club, then yes it will be in violation of the amendment

[Ghost of]

Uh it violates it, all right.

Public USE was not supposed to mean public 'purpose.' Roads, Court house, bases, etc Not 'developments.'

Oh, and most of the people cleared out are going to be poor and frequently minority, as Thomas pointed out. Because that's been the case thus far.

Gotta go, but because some judges read new 'emanations' or interpretations doesn't make them "constitutional." but then, not everyone accepts Marbury v. Madison either.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

For our constituitonal scholars.

Doesn't this violate the 5th amendment? Reading through it, the 5th seems to only state for "public use"

Did the SCOTUS basically say public use is now the same as higher tax revenue?

If you want to be cynical, yes, that is exactly what the Court said. If you want to be a little more reasonable, you could say the SCOTUS found that community redevelopment is a legitimate public purpose.

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Uh it violates it, all right.

Public USE was not supposed to mean public 'purpose.' Roads, Court house, bases, etc Not 'developments.'

Oh, and most of the people cleared out are going to be poor and frequently minority, as Thomas pointed out. Because that's been the case thus far.

Gotta go, but because some judges read new 'emanations' or interpretations doesn't make them "constitutional." but then, not everyone accepts Marbury v. Madison either.

If you're going to put "constitutional" in quotes, then actually, if these judges read an interpretation of the fifth amendment, it DOES make it "constitutional."

Whether we agree with it or not is a different story, but it's the law of the land now.

I'm curious - where would you draw the line?

Public Purpose: Roads, Schools, Libraries, Military Bases

Non-Public Purpose: Commercial Development

Public? or Non-Public?: Urban Renewal, Toll Roads, the MCI Center, the proposed Washington Nationals stadium in Southeast

[SkinsNut73]

Originally posted by jbooma

Did they mentioned what is the value of the homes now?

Curious why the petition was called invalid? Was it because of fake signatures, like a Dc mayor we know

The values listed are what they were offered as "fair and equitable" compensation.

...but if you do a simple search of single or multi-family homes for sale in New London, CT do you know how many you will see for under $150K? Two - one was built in 1895 and the other in 1900.

...know how many you will see between $150-$300K? About 50.

It seems these people were offered no more than $150K for their homes, yet you really can't buy a home in their area for that price.

That's what scares me most. If my local gov't wanted to take my home/land for eminent domain I don't really care. I'm not that attached to the area (though these people being displaced clearly are attached to their homes for various reasons)....but I would want the compensation to be fair and equitable. Don't give me $150K when someone a couple of blocks over is selling a similar home for $225K.

Granted...all I know about these homes is what I've seen on TV...can't really tell the overall condition...but it SEEMS like these people might be getting screwed.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by SkinsNut73

The values listed are what they were offered as "fair and equitable" compensation.

...but if you do a simple search of single or multi-family homes for sale in New London, CT do you know how many you will see for under $150K? Two - one was built in 1895 and the other in 1900.

...know how many you will see between $150-$300K? About 50.

It seems these people were offered no more than $150K for their homes, yet you really can't buy a home in their area for that price.

That's what scares me most. If my local gov't wanted to take my home/land for eminent domain I don't really care. I'm not that attached to the area (though these people being displaced clearly are attached to their homes for various reasons)....but I would want the compensation to be fair and equitable. Don't give me $150K when someone a couple of blocks over is selling a similar home for $225K.

Granted...all I know about these homes is what I've seen on TV...can't really tell the overall condition...but it SEEMS like these people might be getting screwed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the courts haven't ruled on whether or not the prices were fair. All the Supreme Court did yesterday was say that the city was allowed to make an offer. The money amounts can still be litigated.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by jbooma

iheart you just said you agree with the court for interpreting the law (which we agree on, which is what the supreme court is supposed to do), then you say you don't personally agree with the decision, so now how are you against this, you can't be for or against at the same time, it is one or the other, unless you are like me where i feel bad for them but I do think the city and the court are doing what is right

The court has before it the task of either endorsing the relevant principles established in precedent or creating a new standard and thus distinguishing or overruling precedent. The court properly interpreted existing precedent and refused to overrule the 1952 case that directly addresses a comparable situation to that raised in the Kelo case. Thus, I evaluated whether the court properly interpreted existing standards and came to the conlusion that they did. I also concluded by analyzing the opinion that there was a reasonable basis for their holding.

This is seperate and distinct from my own opinion and how I would have ruled had I been on the court to evaluate this case. This is where my opinion and evaluation of the rule of law, that is the "public law" exception, comes into play. This is a different inquiry because it's a personal evaluation of current state of the system of eminent domain, NOT whether the Court had a reasonable basis for deciding the case as it did.

it isn't laziness i just hate going through posts and everything is blamed on Bush when this has been happening for years

Find me a single instance where I blamed anything, anything at all, on Bush. Further, where did anyone who was a serious contributor to the conversation in this thread blamed the decision on Bush?

so where do you stand can the minority stand in a way of a city trying to do what is best to exist, and most likely if this center isn't built then the value of these homes will continue to fall, that is what this case is all about thats it, the rest of the homeowners jumped ship a while back, if all 115 stayed and took it to court then there would be no way the supreme court could rule in favor of the city, since the city would have to abandon the plans from the beginning, and it would have never gotten this far

Please read my posts on this in the thread that directly address my opinion of how the court ruled. See specifically my dialogue with redman as that will likely prove instructive.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by iheartskins

Find me a single instance where I blamed anything, anything at all, on Bush. Further, where did anyone who was a serious contributor to the conversation in this thread blamed the decision on Bush?

I wasn't talking about your posts.

[Cdowwe]

need more conservative judges i guess

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by jbooma

since the city is in need of revenue this will be for public use since all will be able to use it

now if they took the land and opened a private golf club, then yes it will be in violation of the amendment

What the hell is the difference between a golf course and a riverfront hotel?