Taking private property for public use

[Cyprus106]

The supreme court today said local governments can take private land, people's houses, to put for private use that is in the intrest of public good:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/

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.

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 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as handing “disproportionate influence and power” to the well-heeled — represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex.

Those residents 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.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to “just compensation” for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. But 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.”

Jobs, tax revenue cited
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, the court majority 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 Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

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.

“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 Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Homeowners refused to budge
The case involves Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., who filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

The residents had refused to budge, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property.

“I’m not willing to give up what I have just because someone else can generate more taxes here,” said homeowner Matthew Dery, whose family has lived in the neighborhood known as Fort Trumbull for more than 100 years.

New London contends the condemnations are proper because the development plans serving a “public purpose” — such as boosting economic growth — are valid “public use” projects that outweigh the property rights of the homeowners.

The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with New London, ruling 4-3 in March 2004 that the mere promise of additional tax revenue justified the condemnation.


Issue across the country
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned between 1998 and 2002, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

In many cases, according to the group, cities are pushing the limits of their power to accommodate wealthy developers. Courts, meanwhile, are divided over the extent of city power, with seven states saying economic development can justify a taking and eight states allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

In New London, city officials envision replacing a stagnant enclave with commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

“The record is clear that New London was a city desperate for economic rejuvenation,” the city’s legal filing states, in asking the high court to defer to local governments in deciding what constitutes “public use.”

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

Where other states stand
According to the residents’ filing, the seven states that allow condemnations for private business development alone are Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.

Eight states forbid the use of eminent domain when the economic purpose is not to eliminate blight; they are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington.

Another three — Delaware, New Hampshire and Massachusetts — have indicated they probably will find condemnations for economic development alone unconstitutional, while the remaining states have not addressed or spoken clearly to the question.

[Cyprus106]

I had to think about this one for a while. Personally, I conclude that this is a gross overpowerment of sanctioned rights. I mean I remember a man who ran a natural food and medicine building. One of those "use recycled paper" kind of guys. His shop had been around forever, and the building should have been a historic landmark, but the gov't took it and bulldozed it to stick shoulder on one of the larger roads in the city. The man lived right on the road and for years and years he stuck out big pieces of plywood that read his unhappy ramblings. To my understanding, they kind of just cheated the guy out of the place. It generated a few front pages for a while. This was the guy's source of income. One sign once read "They take businesses. What's next? Our homes?" It looks like that is next. I just can't see a genuine justification in this. Instead of breakign new ground, clearing abandoned property, etc. They just want to take homes that people are living in; homes that they worked hard to buy and worked hard to keep up.
Everything is going to be an intrest to the community, thinking about it. People pay taxes on homes! Just like businesses pay taxes. I just don't think it's fair at all. Theoretically, if one old grumpy man is living in a huge house, the government could kick him out to put in a family of 5 because they pay mroe taxes. That would be a bigger intrest to the community.

I just could not comprehend justifing taking people's HOMES! People who are hard working, contributing members of the community. People who take out the trash, pay their taxes, have jobs. They can just take that because some company with deep pockets wants to put in a shopping center.

[YogsVR4]

That was an awful decision made by the most liberal five of the court. A distinct line has been drawn where a private organization can convince the local governemtns that they can use your property better then you.

The only redeeming thing is that emminent domain will usually earn people more for their property then they can get on the open market - not always, but usually.

[lazysmurff]

lets hope that these peopel will be more than compensated for their loss.

its a sad day when the supreme court rules in favor of profits over people.

[Tehvisseeus]

Wasn't the principle of emminent domain supposed to only be used in extreme circumstances? How the hell is building an office complex an extreme circumstance?

[TexasF355F1]

The government should really be careful doing this. I see big lawsuits coming along if they are just up and taking peoples land. If they are taking it due to foreclosure that's one thing, but just because they want to....compensation and set up of a new location should be at hand.

[fredjacksonsan]

Eminent domain was supposed to be the government's right to your property for [i]its own use[i/]:

-----
In law, eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property for its own use without the owner's consent. Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale.

In many jurisdictions the power of eminent domain is tempered with a right that just compensation be made for the appropriation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
-----

Taking property to sell it to a developer is wrong, plain and simple. I'm sure it could be argued that selling it to a developer to gain more taxes is government use; however to remove private citizens from their homes so that their choice land can be developed into something else....

This really burns me up. Don't buy any riverfront property, it might be taken from you later. Shame on the government for allowing this to happen. It's like we're going back into the dark ages, the lord of the land can take what he wants, and do what he wants.

[tenguzero]

Agreed. There is just so much wrong about this. It's tough enough for an owner to have to part with their property/business/home to have something like a road or school or hospital put in -- but dammit, at least it's for the public GOOD. Now, if Wal*Mart, Simon Inc. (they own tons of malls around the country) etc. sees a potential gold mine for some new mall or supercenter, they can appeal to government with their charts and numbers and all sorts of most likely rigged garbage, and sell their proposition as a "good development for the public." Yeah, right, like the public really needs another place hocking Plasma TV's and gadgety cellphones and overpriced DVD's. Meanwhile, private citizens had to watch their homes or businesses bulldozed to make way for a monument to the increasingly dirty side of capitalism.

Uproot lives for commercial gains, pedal the promise of easily obtainable loans with the burden of debt and no protection even in bankruptcy, and keep handing people's lives over to creditors and big-business. Wonderful system we've got playing out here. I hope people don't hesitate to sue the living hell out of these institutions if they feel they've been wronged. After all, apparently dead presidents on pieces of paper are the only thing that means a damn to people anymore.

[drewh4386]

If thaat taxes revenue was all going to me, I 'd gladly except it. You know since they are on my land technically. Wait...its not my land because they seized it.
Weeeeeeelllllll (just yawned) If a BIG compensation was involved I'd think about it.



EDIT>

Now that i that about it, they will that away the new land I bought also.......

[carrrnuttt]

This is crap. Well, and utter crap.

I could somewhat understand, if it was for an emergency reason, like that part of town needed a hospital badly, and that was the best location to reduce emergency responses.

But for a fucking office building???

So people don't have to drive the extra minutes to work?

[fredjacksonsan]

Don't forget it's choice riverfront property.....

[SnoopisTDI]

The worst part of this is that it has been happening for years, this is just the first time it's made it all the way to the SCOTUS, and has been approved as A Okay. I don't think there will be any suing, because the Supreme Court just said it was fine and dandy.

Wasn't this one of the main grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence? What really sucks, is if someone decides to say NO, and takes action, it will be the poor bastard driving the bulldozer who gets shot, instead of the government asshole who made the deal.

Now that the SCOTUS has said it's ok, I expect to see these land-grabs happening a lot more, and I guarantee SOMEONE will say enough is enough.

[lazysmurff]

been looking into some similar cases like this around my neck of the woods, and if it is roughly the same there, these people will be given about 50-75% what their land is actually worth.

im even further saddened by the state of my country.

[SnoopisTDI]

Live by the sword, die by the sword

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by SnoopisTDI

Live by the sword, die by the sword

Snoopis, that's awesome. I'll go stay there if/when it gets built, just for kicks.