Gov't can take your house if THEY want to

[jlmiracle 7]

washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 10:50 AM


WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled 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 conflicts with individual property rights.

Thursday's 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.

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.

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.

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.

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[flifree 0]

wow this is scary. i wonder how or if this will effect the real estate boom we are currently experiencing? i would certainly think twice about any investment properties at this point.

[lawrocket 3]

Government versus the individual. Once again, we've got the USC making decisions that the individual is subordinate to the government.

Pass the Tylenol. More on this later.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[EBSB52 0]

Damn, someone beat me to posting this thread. All those who make fun of me making references to American Fascism..... any comment? Even the conservs will start to agree with the ridiculous flag burning attempt and this that the US becomes less desireable every day.

[jlmiracle 7]

Our government is starting to scare me. They used to just piss me off, now they scare me. I know they are not perfect but next thing they will try some type of "cleansing".

j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Our government is starting to scare me. They used to just piss me off, now they scare me. I know they are not perfect but next thing they will try some type of "cleansing".

j

This is nothing new, Judy. Eminent Domain laws have been around for a while. Over the last few decades they have been expanded to cover all kinds of things. Coastal commissions will often require easements across private land for beach access before they allow structures or improvements to be made - government extortion, really. And houses wiped out in hurricanes, etc., are often not built because the new regulations do not allow it.

This is just the next step in a long process. The local governments, desiring tax revenues, really hate residences and mom and pop stores. Walmarts, CostCo, and other large businesses generate huge local revenues through sales taxes and business taxes. For the local governments, this is worth fighting for since the money to be made is huge.

Only the states can now give these protections. A state may grant individuals more rights than the Federal Constitution. But, then again, the states stand to make a lot of money from this, too.

And EBS, this isn't fascism. THis is government being the most powerful money making machine out there.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pajarito 0]

That is very fu#$ed up.

[pajarito 0]

I think eminent domain laws have a purpose for the betterment & benefit of the community, however, I don't believe an office building fits that description. I think that is overstepping their bounds.

[jlmiracle 7]

I understand they can do this for public uses, but Fk wal-mart if they want to build where my house is. They have plenty of money they can go else where. It pisses me off.

Why (I realize you are not a Supreme Court Justice yet) do they give the local gov't authority over this bs, but won't let the local gov't rule themselve when it comes to the well being of the people that live there (i.e. medical marijauana).

j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[flifree 0]

it's a very scary landmark case that will hopefully strike a chord with ALL americans.

if i may draw an analogy. take a frog and drop him in a pot of 250 degree boling water and he will go nuts and try and get out. now, put him in a luke warm pot and slowly turn up the heat and you can cook him alive. i think people have forgotten why this great nation was created....for exactly this type of government meddling. slowly, surely, the governemnt is crawling into our lives a bit more each day.

i am truly alarmed. with that said, i still love this place and wouldn't want to be anywhere else. we gotta work with it.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

THis is government being the most powerful money making machine out there.

They might have gotten a better deal from China.

illegible usually

[marks 0]

Quote

Government versus the individual.

isnt this why we have the right to bear arms?


well start bearing them!!.. try to take my home and you will see my arsenel!

[billvon 2,477]

>try to take my home and you will see my arsenel!

And then you will become just another terrorist, and get chalked up as a victory in the war on terror when they take you down.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

>try to take my home and you will see my arsenel!

And then you will become just another terrorist, and get chalked up as a victory in the war on terror when they take you down.

Actually with the Patriot act, he could be labeled a terrorist first, and then they could take the house.

Since he's already admitted to having "an arsenal" and intent to use force against the government he's certainly guilty. It's no longer the act that is illegal, but the intent to act.

illegible usually

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

THis is government being the most powerful money making machine out there

I used to think it was religion, but after this...

Government seems to be more corrupt at the local level than at the federal level, at least where I live.

Aren't they doing this in Africia? and aren't 1mm+ people already displaced and homeless because of actions like these?

Shit like this makes me feel embarrased to be an american.

j


j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Our government is starting to scare me. They used to just piss me off, now they scare me. I know they are not perfect but next thing they will try some type of "cleansing".

j

This is nothing new, Judy. Eminent Domain laws have been around for a while. Over the last few decades they have been expanded to cover all kinds of things. Coastal commissions will often require easements across private land for beach access before they allow structures or improvements to be made - government extortion, really. And houses wiped out in hurricanes, etc., are often not built because the new regulations do not allow it.

This is just the next step in a long process. The local governments, desiring tax revenues, really hate residences and mom and pop stores. Walmarts, CostCo, and other large businesses generate huge local revenues through sales taxes and business taxes. For the local governments, this is worth fighting for since the money to be made is huge.

Only the states can now give these protections. A state may grant individuals more rights than the Federal Constitution. But, then again, the states stand to make a lot of money from this, too.

And EBS, this isn't fascism. THis is government being the most powerful money making machine out there.

Imminent domain has to do with public need/necc not corporate profit. I see the gov saying it is for the public with tax gains/employment, etc, but that is so out of context.

And EBS, this isn't fascism. THis is government being the most powerful money making machine out there.

Fascism is many things, but the most foundational is the marriage of corp and gov where the corps run the government through influence of politicians. This IS Fascism.

[billvon 2,477]

>Since he's already admitted to having "an arsenal" and intent to
>use force against the government he's certainly guilty. It's no
>longer the act that is illegal, but the intent to act.

True. It would be a pre-emptive arrest and confiscation. We don't want the terrorists to win!

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I think eminent domain laws have a purpose for the betterment & benefit of the community, however, I don't believe an office building fits that description. I think that is overstepping their bounds.

Hell, they did it here with BOB - Bank One Ballpark. Made an 80 something yo woman move out of a house that she'd lived in all her life... died shortly after that.

Oh, and BOB funding was voted down by the county voters, County Board of Supervisors held a midnight session where they threw out the voters decision and held a private vote.... passed it of course. A guy shot Mary Rose Wilcox inthe ass and got 10 years for it......

No Fascism here.... shut up and move along or you'llbe shot...

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I understand they can do this for public uses, but Fk wal-mart if they want to build where my house is. They have plenty of money they can go else where. It pisses me off.

Why (I realize you are not a Supreme Court Justice yet) do they give the local gov't authority over this bs, but won't let the local gov't rule themselve when it comes to the well being of the people that live there (i.e. medical marijauana).

j

This is a beautiful thing. Between this and the flag burning thread I think people are starting to realize how, A) Fascist we are, and, B) How having a Democracy means squat.... Nazi Germany was a Democracy.

I hoe this awakening isn't too late....

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

it's a very scary landmark case that will hopefully strike a chord with ALL americans.

if i may draw an analogy. take a frog and drop him in a pot of 250 degree boling water and he will go nuts and try and get out. now, put him in a luke warm pot and slowly turn up the heat and you can cook him alive. i think people have forgotten why this great nation was created....for exactly this type of government meddling. slowly, surely, the governemnt is crawling into our lives a bit more each day.

i am truly alarmed. with that said, i still love this place and wouldn't want to be anywhere else. we gotta work with it.

Great points all around...

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Government seems to be more corrupt at the local level than at the federal level, at least where I live.

Of course government is more corrupt at the local rather than national level. Journalists don't win Pulitzer Prizes taking down a County supervisor who has shady dealings. That's why the Washington DC dudes stay a lot cleaner than the local guys.

My hometown has strawberry fields all over when I moved there as a kid. Now the place is better known in Japan than in SoCal because of all the headquarters there. I don't mind that.

Still, when a large area of open space came up, a church wanted the land and offered a higher price for it than a major store. The city refused and got sued. Turns out the city wanted the revenues from sales taxes and everythign else that would come with it.

Churches just don't make cities any money. And you wonder why local governments are trying to ban religion? Look at the frog example.

If you eliminate religion from everything governmental, you begin to eliminate religion. Once the churches die out, those properties can be used to make money. Meanwhile, government's influence grows and grows, and the money flows and flows, so they can give out more and more, and reach ever higher deficits.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jlmiracle 7]

Lawrocket - is there anything we can do to stop the insanity?

I'm so frustrated I don't know what to do, who to call, who to voice my concerns to. Any ideas?

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[lawrocket 3]

Thsi is a federal decision. The Federal Constitution provides the bare minimum of rights guaranteed to all persons. However, states can do more.

The State Legislature can pass a law prohibiting eminent doman for private use by the state, counties or cities. That's the only way to stop this.

Actually, a referendum can help with this, too. This sounds like an issue where a referendum would be good. This means that while the US Constitution says it's okay for a local government to do this stuff, the state law says otherwise, and federal law will not usurp a state law that gives more protections to its citizens that the US Constitution does.

edited to add: it's being done: "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. "

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

is there anything we can do to stop the insanity?

I'm so frustrated I don't know what to do, who to call, who to voice my concerns to. Any ideas?

Support the Institute for Justice, ED abuse has been at the top of their list for a while now.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[rushmc 18]

The activists courts are our freedoms biggest threat! Once we ignore the founders intent we are headed down hill. Look at the names of those that were the majority........

Liberal or Conservative?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln