posted on June 23, 2005 08:45:53 AM newSupreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YENThe Associated PressThursday, June 23, 2005; 11:26 AM
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 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.
Writing for the court, 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 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 in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. "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," he said.
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.
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
"[b]It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country[b]," 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.
"We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling.
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 was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 23, 2005 10:15:45 AM new
The democrats are saying the Republicans are taking away rights. Cutting costs, benefits what do you call this. Taking homes away from citizens to build a hotel. Some of the families in these homes are 3 generations. What a shame. It is sad to know that one day you can own your home and the next day have it taken away because the city wants to build a condominium complex or a hotel. I sure hope that this can be explained by someone who thinks this is right.
My friend had her home taken away because of blight. Ya right, no blight only dollar signs in the eyes of the village to make more money. She had a home in the country and property that was assessed at over a million dollars, Swish it was gone. She probably got 1/3 of the price of the property. There is something wrong. Work all your life to have something but it is taken away in 9 months.
posted on June 23, 2005 10:44:34 AM new
All this ruling does is give neocons what they want !
Total control by the ultra rich and powerful....whadya whinin' about NOW ?
If those people wanted to keep their homes they should've worked harder and made more money than the people who want their property .......well they didn't...just sat on their lazy butts and let those hard working rich people get richer....it's their own damn fault
posted on June 23, 2005 11:27:04 AM new
What do you think The Los Angeles Dodger Stadium is sitting on....and That was done over 40 years ago,,,,,,,Bulldozed the residence right out the door......
posted on June 23, 2005 12:20:28 PM new
Miss crowfarm you have said some really nasty things but I think this one takes the cake.
If those people wanted to keep their homes they should've worked harder and made more money than the people who want their property
Please give me an explanation why you think if these people made more money they could have kept their property? These folks could be the wealthiest people in Conn. but all the money they had couldn't and wouldn't let them keep their homes. The greedy town board wants to destroy their homes to put up a hotel because more money would be generated by that hotel than their taxes. It is so sad to see someone like you who complains about everything stick up for the city.
Explain this stupid statement that you made.
All this ruling does is give neocons what they want ! How do you know what they are? If you have sympathy for the veterans why don't you have some for these people that are losing their homes.
I think crowfarm was being sarcastic. The right are always saying that the poor are poor because they don't work hard enough or as hard as the rich do. That's where she's being sarcastic.
posted on June 23, 2005 12:33:11 PM new
The City of New London has a City Council/City Manager form of government. The City Manager is appointed by the Council and serves as the Chief Executive Officer. The City Council consists of seven members including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. In recent years, the City Council has been predominantly Democrats. The Council is focused on education and economic development. The seven-member Board of Education is the governing body of the school system and is dominated by Democrats.
posted on June 23, 2005 12:40:32 PM new
Another ruling to benefit the already too wealthy and to punish the already too poor.
The democrats are saying the Republicans are taking away rights. Cutting costs, benefits what do you call this.
Seems to me there are more justices serving on the Supreme Court that were nominated by Republican presidents then Democrat presidents. So, what do you call this? No. of democrat appointed: 3; no. of republican appointed: 7. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, though.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jun 23, 2005 12:41 PM ]
posted on June 23, 2005 12:41:07 PM new
Please Cheryl don't think for Miss crowfarm.
Don't stoop to her level of thinking.
I have been trying to understand why she posts like she does. I have been trying to be nice but still the insults come. She talks about going back to topic of the threads when very often it is her that trashes them before they even have a chance.
I know that you and the rest of the "Lefties" enjoy her way of posting. You never see the bad side of her with her name calling. But when she post things that are not true she is called upon it but never responds. Go ahead be on her bandwagon, but don't ever fall off.
Does she ever call you Cherall, or Cha Cha Cheryl. No and I wouldn't either and either would Linda or Bear. She is the attention getter of the Left.
posted on June 23, 2005 12:54:43 PM new
And here I thought we'd get more of a negative response from cheryl. Not that long ago SHE was having a FIT about this happening in her town/city.
And it really doesn't make any difference which President appointed whom....their past history of voting...whether they always tend to vote liberal or conservative IS what matters.
And the ones that have now made this seizing process the LAW of our land....are the justices who consistantly vote LIBERAL.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
I think it's wrong, terribly wrong, but right now I have other things to worry about. Flying into a rage won't help that situation. Fortunately, we were allowed a vote here and the imminent domain issue was put to bed. That's the democratic way. Let the people decide.
I think you will find that this issue in Connecticut is far from over.
No one on this board no matter what they say will rile me anymore. It's decision I made for the betterment of my health and my family. If you haven't noticed, I'm posting less and less here and more and more on the EO.
Edited to add: Their vote was not a liberal one. Liberals do not put big business and the almighty dollar ahead of the people who have elected them to serve. That's the conservative way. What happened here is a mystery to me and I think it happened because of all the accusations that they were too liberal after the Shiavo fiasco. JMO.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jun 23, 2005 01:09 PM ]
posted on June 23, 2005 01:36:04 PM new
""Miss crowfarm you have said some really nasty things but I think this one takes the cake.
If those people wanted to keep their homes they should've worked harder and made more money than the people who want their property""
Well, libra you don't seem to mind when your fellow neocons say it ...why the double standard ??? And, yes, old slow one, they HAVE said it...not in this exact circumstance but that's their attitude towards the poor and I AGREE with you that it IS nasty.
""Please give me an explanation why you think if these people made more money they could have kept their property? These folks could be the wealthiest people in Conn. but all the money they had couldn't and wouldn't let them keep their homes. The greedy town board wants to destroy their homes to put up a hotel because more money would be generated by that hotel than their taxes. It is so sad to see someone like you who complains about everything stick up for the city. ""
These people are mid to low income. If they were the wealthiest people no one would dare touch them.
"Sticking up for the city" ...I was being sarcastic you dense old goat...just like Cheryl said. AND, BTW, don't tell Cheryl what to do !
Again, (and again) as to name calling. I'm so sorry your condition prevents you from remembering how you call people stupid and scumbags and idiots. You repeatedly call me "miss" which is stupid but you don't see me whining about it EVERY POST!
""All this ruling does is give neocons what they want ! How do you know what they are?""
What WHO are,?? you doddering old fool !
Neocons...I was talking about NEOCONS...THAT'S who!
And what they want is government control , total dictatorship and this is it.
posted on June 23, 2005 03:58:12 PM new
Sorry Ron I miss understood you post.
{I}These people are mid to low income. If they were the wealthiest people no one would dare touch them[/i]
Miss Crowfarm,Do you really know how poor these people are are you just guessing?
You ask why I call you Miss Crowfarm but you have said you have a significant other so I don't know if your married or not.
[ edited by Libra63 on Jun 23, 2005 04:06 PM ]
posted on June 23, 2005 05:12:53 PM new
That's ok Libra63, others seemed to have missed it also.
Personal Property is just that. Some places have benefited from doing revitalization to commercial areas, but not homes. People grow sentimental attachments as well they should be allowed to.
I wonder if they had any growth plans for the city?
Ron
posted on June 23, 2005 05:41:38 PM new
And I'm glad you're still here, Crow!After all somebody has to keep the Re-pubic monkeys in their cages and under control! I just wish you could figure out a way to keep them from showing their bright red asses in public so often! LOL
Ron, I'm not sure if the people who's homes are being taken from them, would profit more from what the government will offer them than if they sold their homes privately...I highly doubt it, as the government will likely buy the homes as condemned property at low prices..but that isn't the issue as I see it..
these people should be allowed to have a choice whether they want to sell their home or not.....and in most cases, I'm willing to bet that with what they receive, many will not be able to purchase another home again..
So much for the American Dream..it only applies to the rich..anyway..we have soooo many, far more important things to be outraged over..such as Oprah being denied entry to Hermes in Paris, when it was closed.. imagine the nerve!...not to mention Tom Cruise being squirted in the face....my oh my..
Libra before you jump all over me, that was sarcasm..
posted on June 23, 2005 07:09:45 PM new
When the process begins, they can make more money than when attempting to sell. But it could come down to take it or well you have to take or get nothing.
I have seen hovels here in Vancouver get median price for something that would of sold for thousands less.
posted on June 23, 2005 07:40:49 PM new
I guess you missed my post Land valued at 1 million dollars they blighted and gave them $300,000.00 Seams fair right? What they worked all their life for the village took it away.
Now the village is going to turn around and sell it to a shopping center. Seems like the Village is the one who makes the most.
posted on June 23, 2005 08:07:25 PM new
Hey Crow, your post went by Libra like a fart in a wind storm. Very funny Libra like they say, open big mouth and insert big foot.LOL Don't worry Libra we all do the same from time to time. This time around should teach you to go a little slower and think a little deeper before putting your words into your keyboard
The rich Republicans are getting what they have been buying and voting for,for years. Yes,the rich republicans have been looking for these type of rulings for years now and spent a lot of money in tricking everyday Americans into voting with them in the last 2 elections.
If America continues to allow the party of the Rich to have total control. Todays ruling will be just the tip of the iceberg of what will come from our courts and law makers.
posted on June 23, 2005 08:19:07 PM new
No, Libra, it isn't the "village" that will make the most ...it's the ultra-rich developers and business owners who will make the most. They probably got huge tax breaks from the "village" which , of course, will raise taxes for the villagers.
posted on June 23, 2005 09:43:37 PM new
The ruling that came to day is the saddest event that has come to pass in my lifetime. The September 11 bombings were sheer horror but at least the attack was from terrorist. Today the 5 judges who agreed to pass this law essentially took away the property rights of all American citizens. If this were the 60's people would be marching in the streets. This is the most unfair, cruel, heartless law they have ever passed. I am greived tonight... to my soul.
posted on June 23, 2005 10:36:47 PM new
Orleans - you should understand that the Supreme Court does not pass laws.
They found a rather reprehensible practice to be legal but they did not pass a law and if you read the judgement you'll notice that even as they pass a decision that the practice is not unconsitutional, they don't exactly endorse it either and they suggest that local states and municipalities should pass their own laws banning the practice.
Sometimes there is a big difference between what is constitutional and what is moral and way too often these days, people are trying to blur that line. The Supreme Courts job is not that make judgements regarding morality. Their only consideration is every case before them is in legal compliance with the constitution. When you start expecting them to make judgements based on what is right or moral then you defeat the entire purpose of the courts existance. They exist to act as legal oversight, not as a moral barometer.
Welcome Back Miss Mags. Have you finally learned your lesson about playing nicely with others.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 24, 2005 03:29:49 AM new
orleansgallery
It will take the people to stand up and say, NO, you cannot have our land. Since the 1960's, people have become complacent. It's easier to look the other way when things don't affect you. This, however, affects everyone. It may not be unconstitutional (although I think that's a borderline decision), but it's unconscionable and it equates to legal theivery. I don't believe this is the last of it. Until people stand up and say "no more" this issue will continue across the nation and it will be like a plaque visited upon the people and they will be powerless to stop it.
It sickens me to go past what were once beautiful wooded lands only to find shopping centers, parking lots and office buildings while the downtown areas of most major cities are practically vacant. Yes, it is the developers here that will be making the money. Oh, I'm sure they were given tax incentives and don't believe the city if they tell you otherwise. It will be years before the city sees any real revenue from this venture. City parks are for the public good. Good, solid housing is for the public good. Jobs, healthcare and good education are for the public good. An office complex is not.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jun 24, 2005 03:30 AM ]
posted on June 24, 2005 05:06:28 AM new
Oh for pete's sake fenix, another totally unnecessary nit picking pompousass lecture to orleans!
I think I understood the POINT orleans was making without your "corrections".
