Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

[Warham]

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Among those still pending for the court, which next meets on Monday, is one testing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commands on government property.

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

"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.

Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects that benefit the lower and middle class.

They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights. Critics had feared that would allow a small group of homeowners to stymie rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs.

"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote.

O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

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.

Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."

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

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.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of 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 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.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

[Nickdfresh]

WARHAM and I agree on something! :eek: This is complete and utter bullshit.

[FORD]

This is entirely out of character. It should be the conservative judges supporting corporatism. Who put the LSD in their water?

While I would be in support of a court decision that limited development for environmental reasons, there's NO excuse whatsoever to enable corporations to further swindle people like this would do.

Leave the bad decisions to Fat Tony and Clarence the Clown :mad:

[Redballjets88]

holy shit conservs. and libs agreeing maybe vh is reuniting

[Warham]

I was listening to Howie Carr on the way home from work today, and he had a poll going where 98% of the pollers disagreed with this decision.

[BigBadBrian]

Fuckers in my town have made people sell personal property so the city can build fucking HOTELS and CONVENTION CENTERS for fucking tourists. Let 'em go to the beach and get eaten by the sharks. :mad:

:gulp:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Fuckers in my town have made people sell personal property so the city can build fucking HOTELS and CONVENTION CENTERS for fucking tourists. Let 'em go to the beach and get eaten by the sharks. :mad:

:gulp:


But it's good for the economy, Brian! Isn't that what matters? People can relocate, but centralized shopping malls are the bottom line for this country...

"The business of America is business"

[Guitar Shark]

I don't agree with this decision either, but the subtitle of this thread is misleading. It does not mean that localities will raze private homes to build 7-11s. They still need to show a legitimate public purpose.

The theory behind the decision is that it will allow more public improvement development projects for the poor. I don't buy it, but even if the theory is reasonable, it's still a dangerous precedent I think.

[The Scatologist]

I say they people who are getting displaced, should riot.

Or even better, when all the new shops and shit are built on top of their homes, loot the damn places :D

Then tear it down!

It was their land in the first place anyway!

[Warham]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I don't agree with this decision either, but the subtitle of this thread is misleading. It does not mean that localities will raze private homes to build 7-11s. They still need to show a legitimate public purpose.

The theory behind the decision is that it will allow more public improvement development projects for the poor. I don't buy it, but even if the theory is reasonable, it's still a dangerous precedent I think.

The subtitle was added for sarcasm.

There's apparently no such thing as 'home sweet home' when the town can come in with a bulldozer to build a shopping mall that'll be run down in twenty years.

[Cathedral]

This is wrong wrong wrong, this will not stand and the people will see it rectified.

See, I told you that neither side can be trusted anymore.
The process of shitting on the very people that employ them just gets worse and worse and covers all the isles in Washington.

Welcome the new party, the Republicrat, or Democan Party of the people who hate people with more AND less than them.

Unbelievable.................

[Nickdfresh]

Urban sprawl is one of this country's biggest blights. This decision has the potential to add to the sprawl.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Cathedral


See, I told you that neither side can be trusted anymore.
The process of shitting on the very people that employ them just gets worse and worse and covers all the isles in Washington.

Welcome the new party, the Republicrat, or Democan Party of the people who hate people with more AND less than them.



In fairness, the courts - and obviously The Supreme Court - are supposed to exist outsdie of partisan politics. They don't render judgements based on political viewpoints, but based instead on precedent.

And the precedent already exists for this. This was basically just reconfirming and ujpholding the law as it already existed.

Am I happy about it? Of course not. But it's nothing new, and communities and people who are going to be displaced are still going to protest loud and clear, sometimes to the point where a private investor backs off and decides the backlash outweighs the benefit, or will commit, for example, to the improvement of the towns parks.

[Warham]

Let's be honest here. The court does render decisions based on their political viewpoints...

Wasn't it David Souter who said he likes to consult international law as precedent for his decisions? International law????

There was no previous law for this. The proper usage for that 5th amendment would be something like the state demolishing your house to build a new highway that will aleviate traffic problems in the area. That's fair use.

Taking your house for a strip mall is not.

A terrible decision.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Let's be honest here. The court does render decisions based on their political viewpoints...

Wasn't it David Souter who said he likes to consult international law as precedent for his decisions? International law????

There was no previous law for this. The proper usage for that 5th amendment would be something like the state demolishing your house to build a new highway that will aleviate traffic problems in the area. That's fair use.

Taking your house for a strip mall is not.

A terrible decision.

Their thinking is that - under the 5th Amendment - this will allieve impoverished districts by giving an economic boost by way of jobs and businesses.

What's gioing on with you, Warham? When did you start reading Mother Jones?

Hippy.

[Unchainme]

i don't care if your a Republican or a Democrat this ruling was pure Bullshit. And I'm just suprised those judges have not been Impeached yet, some of their decisions lately have been ridiculous.

[DLR'sCock]

Abuse of eminent domain has been going on for a long time in this country, and frankly it is fucking digusting.




We fought this with our favorite local rock n roll watering hole and place for local rock bands to perform. We got over 300 people to attend a city council meeting where the first vote was to take place that would have eventually led up to abuse of eminent domain and good bye to an infamous rock n roll club, guess what??? We won!!!


You can make a difference, organize and act. Get the numbers out there and let people know. When you get those numbers at the important meetings, those fuckers won't vote against you in front of your face.

[BITEYOASS]

I have a few ideas to help this problem:

-Run for mayor in a city or town where a supreme court member(the ones who voted yes on the ruling of course) or one of their relatives live and seize they're property; let's see how those hypocrites react then!

-Second solution is to propose a constitutional amendment to congress concerning property rights if have a congress person who actually gives a fuck.

-The third solution is to have an endangered species of plant be placed on your property.

-And the final solution is to get in a standoff with the police if all else fails. :D

[academic punk]

Excellent article. Worth printing out and highlighting....

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/index.htm?cnn=yes

Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?

Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond


Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?

Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.

Retailers such as Target (Research), Home Depot (Research) and Bed, Bath & Beyond (Research) have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found.

Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation.

Local governments have increasingly expanded the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores. Critics of the process maintain that local governments are too quick to invoke eminent domain on behalf of big retailers because of the potential for tax revenue generation and job creation.

The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.

The ruling would seem to offer new opportunities to retailers. However, some industry watchers caution that with Thursday's decision thrusting the eminent domain issue into the national spotlight, companies using eminent domain risk a very public backlash.

Craig Johnson, president of retail consulting group Customer Growth Partners, said that retailers shouldn't interpret the high court's decision to be a green light to aggressively expand even into those neighborhoods where a big-box presence is unwelcome.

"Even with the Supreme Court's decision potentially in their favor, smart retailers would rather go into communities wearing a white hat rather than a black one," said Johnson.

The appropriate move for companies would be to selectively use eminent domain as a last resort, he said, not as a first course of action. "I think companies have learned a few lessons from Wal-Mart's public relations struggles," he said.

Where's the space crunch?
According to industry watchers, retailers face a different type of expansion problem on the East Coast versus the West Coast.

"On the West Coast, land availability takes a back seat to labor union issues and that's why Wal-Mart has consistently run into problems in California," Johnson said. "On the East Coast, because of population density it's very hard to get big open space and the zoning is more restrictive," Johnson said.

Industry consultant George Whalin said that's one reason that Target, the No. 2 retailer behind Wal-Mart, (Research) has resorted to using eminent domain to set up shop in a few East Coast markets.

Target and Wal-Mart could not immediately be reached for comment.

"Wal-Mart and Target have both been criticized for their eminent domain use," said Burt Flickinger, a consultant with the Strategic Resources Group.

Meanwhile, eminent domain opponents called the high court ruling a "big blow for small businesses."

"It's crazy to think about replacing existing successful small businesses with other businesses," said Adrian Moore, vice president of Los Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute, a non-profit organization opposed to eminent domain.

"There are many, many instances where we've found that the cities that agreed to eminent domain use not only destroyed local businesses but the tax revenue that the local government had hoped to generate did not come to pass," Moore said.

But at least one retail industry analyst sees things a little differently.

"Expanding for big box store is a challenge, especially in the Northeast. Therefore, retailers will have to devise a strategy for using eminent domain," said Candace Corlett, retail analyst with WSL Strategic nRetail.

"Local communities may oppose Wal-Mart and Target coming to their area but as consumers, they also want to shop at these stores and they complain when they don't have these stores nearby," she said. "The fact is that shoppers ultimately vote with their dollars and retailers are very well aware of that."

Click here to read about whether the government can force you to sell your house in the name of new development.

Where is Wal-Mart looking to expand overseas?

[DLR'sCock]

Yes, it is fucking disguting, and it is the same thing as THEFT!!!!!!



FUCK OFF ALL OF YOU PIECES OF SHIT!!!!!

[Nitro Express]

If the United States keeps on the path it's been on, we are headed for another civil war. The first civil war really wasn't about slavery. It was about states rights vs. federal rights. The Confederacy believed that the states should decide on issues like slavery and not the federal govt.

Our federal govt. is so awash in special interest money that the small person gets ran over by the greedy corporations that make big donations to both Democrats and Republicans. If it keeps up, there will be lots of Wal-marts and Targets burning.

[DLR'sCock]

Look remember, you can fight having some business try and take yoru land through eminent domain, but you need to figth and make a big stink. You need people to show up to the council meetings that vote on this in your local town. Get articles in the local papers, bad press is bad press for big business'.....and local town council members who are voted nto office.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by BITEYOASS
I have a few ideas to help this problem:

-Second solution is to propose a constitutional amendment to congress concerning property rights if have a congress person who actually gives a fuck.
:D

This is most likely to happen. I think the pressure will be so great lawmakers will want to do it. Even those who think the lawmakers are in peoples pockets (and they are) this is more important because it is the PERFECT re-election issue. Your city councilman, your governor, your Congressman ALL could have any easy win on this issue. As shown in this thread, pretty much EVERYONE is against it. They all can pass this law and looking like "working class heroes" or "saviours of small business". The Congressman are likely to act on it, because they wouldn't want the small fries getting the glory.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by academic punk
companies using eminent domain risk a very public backlash.



Damned right they do.

[madraoul]

I used to think those new world order guys were a bunch of whackos. But I'll be damned if a lot of their rhetoric isn't coming to pass.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't property ownership the entire basis of our American way of life? With the loss of outright property ownership, we just lost any power the individual had left in this country.

Not to be dramatic, but this ruling pretty much wipes out everything after the Magna Carta. Welcome to the United Serfdom of America.

[Big Train]

Your right, that WAS a bit dramatic. But your entitled.


I think we will see some new political stars made out of this ruling. It's just too fat and too easy a target for the wannabes of tomorrow.

[madraoul]

Originally posted by Big Train
Your right, that WAS a bit dramatic. But your entitled.


I think we will see some new political stars made out of this ruling. It's just too fat and too easy a target for the wannabes of tomorrow.

Good point. This situation has "hero" potential written all over it. I wonder who will be the first to attempt to McJump up to McSave the day and take advantage of the photo op.

[thome]

-Second solution is to propose a constitutional amendment to congress concerning property rights if have a congress person who actually gives a fuck.


Shure thing lets just keep chipping away at the only part of this
great nation that ever stood for the little guy

that is some peoples idea of fixing what isnt broken slowly
destoy it while nobody is paying attention Small little piece by piece
until we have a communist socialist manifesto that has so many
stupid retards ideas of how it should be everyone is a SLAVE