| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes |
| 2005-06-23 |
| So much for relying on the Supreme Court to defend our rights.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. "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. "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. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #39 This has been going on for years. We called it urban renewal first. We tore down most of the inner-city, crowded but stable black neighborhoods and built socialist workers paradise apartments. What happened? Drugs, violence and decay. Here in So Cal, one town tore down a an 80 year old barrio and probably the only authentic false front bar left in the LA basin and replaced it with a mall and "new urban" housing. Another town condemned a bunch of solid 1950's housing and gave it to a private high school using urban renewal laws. The court only legitimized fifty years of de facto behavior. I normally am against attempts to amend the constitution, but I would really get behind one to rectify this situation. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2005-06-24 00:12 |
| #38 Jackal - I wouldn't be too sure about that. "Free speech for me but not for thee!' is a well established manta of the left. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-06-23 23:06 |
| #37 I have had a US flag on my house since I bought it. I have had a US flag around ever since I can remember. I joined the Army because I love my country. I am fiercely loyal to the constitution and the ideas, which brought about this great nation. Today, when I got home and read the opinions of the Court, I took down that flag and put it away. I will no longer have a symbol of tyranny on MY land and home. I don't give a fuck what the goddamn Court says; it is MY home and land. While I support the constitution and love my country dearly, I can no longer support my government. Everything I fought and watched friends die for was destroyed today. The ownership of private property is one of the PRIMARY rights we Americans have. If the government can take it away for no better purpose than "more money", the laws that they have used to bring us slavery no longer hold us. I cannot and will not support this or just shrug and do nothing. The declaration of independence was used once successfully. Don't make us use it again. Bush and the republicans need to do some serious law making to curb this atrocity before it permanently damages our nation. You are now on notice Washington DC. Don't. Fuck. This. Up. Or we, the people, the very population that your power comes from, will snuff you and your evil laws out. Thatisall. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-06-23 22:59 |
| #36 The courts are today, for all intents and purposes, utterly lawless and illegitimate entities. It could be argued that, not only are the courts engaged in the systematic usurpation of powers not delegated to them, but that their recent actions constitute broad-based disenfranchisement of voters. Some of the less patient in our land may well come to the conclusion that it is time, again, to water the Tree of Liberty. And the more patient among us can't help but conclude that this "branch" of government needs to be fixed soon, or completely crushed. |
| Posted by: Red Lief 2005-06-23 22:12 |
| #35 We need to impeach and remove these guys (and gal). Of course, enough Senators are in the pockets of developers or love the idea of planners taking over our property that it will never happen. One advantage in living in the 9th Circuit is that I can call for the assasination of Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy and it's Constitutionally Protected Speech. Huzzah. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-06-23 22:08 |
| #34 I saw this on MSN, truly heinous. Goes against everything I fight for and believe in. I to have listened to Boortz for the past several months predicting this travesty, I was hoping he was just ranting aimlessly. Boy was I wrong. How do these justices live w/themselves. I feel so bad for these folks in these homes. Just to raise a few taxes! Fucking bullshit. How about mowing down a few abandoned crack houses instead of kicking grannie out of her 100 yr old house you slimey pieces of shit! Like connecticut needs more fucking shopping malls or high rises or $700K homes. If the American people don't stand together and fix this then we're all to blame. The President needs to make a strong statement in disagreement of this decision if he has not already. I tell you what, if any asshole local politician thinks I'd give up my land and home for a fucking strip mall then they will be prying my gun out of my cold dead hands. I seem to recall a revolution was fought over similar abuses. |
| Posted by: Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead 2005-06-23 20:41 |
| #33 I still can't believe this is the Supreme Court of the United States that made this ruling... I wouldn't even bat an eye if it were the 9th Any real-estate developers out there want to start pressing for developing land where relatives of the assenting Supremes live? They're bound to have some nephew, cousin, or grandson or -daughter living in a moderately or less priced home somewhere around the country that can be claimed for building a mall, office building, etc. That will make for some fun holiday dinners when they discuss how Granddad paved the way for their house to get paved over. |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-06-23 20:21 |
| #32 Oh wow. Echos of communism. Bravo. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-06-23 20:05 |
| #31 disgusting - a look at the appointees who voted for it. As an engineer for a public entity, we have the right to utilize eminent domain for right-of-way acquisition in the public interest (streets, bridges, etc.). In my 22 yrs I have never had to do so and would consider it a failure of negotiation. To do so for a private interest, just to increase tax base, is absolutely contrary. I fully expect every-day people to lose their lives over this decision, while the grab-all nanny state elites stay safe behind their tinted limo windows. F*&kers. Ginsburg, Souter, et al can't die fast enough for me |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-06-23 19:53 |
| #30 Doesn't sound a damn bit crazy to me. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-06-23 19:04 |
| #29 I know this sounds crazy,but if the local govt said they where taking my property for a Walmart or mall.They better bring lots of guns because I am going to war with them. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2005-06-23 18:51 |
| #28 They just put a bullet in the brain of what we once knew a private property. Whats next, eliminating people who dont produce enough taxes? |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2005-06-23 18:39 |
| #27 Dead on: 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. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property-and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. -- Justice Sandra Day O'Conner Dissent to the Kelo decision |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-06-23 17:52 |
| #26 It took a lot of time and debate before the colonist in North America decided that they could do without a king. Some even remained loyal to the bitter end. Today we just argue because we don't want to do what is truely necessary if we are to continue the experiment started over a hundred years ago. Either you accept that the third branch of government, like the other two, must be directly accountable to the people, or accept a modern form of aristocracy. Its been nearly a hundred years since the XVII admendment changed the office of Senator to one directly accountable to the people. Time is well past when this needs to apply to the Judiciary. There are no 'better' judges. The power is in their hands and Congress is not going to start impeaching them. The only realistic choice is to make them justify their time in office by being held accountable as any other office holder. On with that, the fun in the Senate gets to be moved to the public arena. Oh, joy! |
| Posted by: Cleger Cromosing1705 2005-06-23 17:47 |
| #25 LH: I respect the hell out of you. You are the sort of liberal I love to be friends with; indeed, as a sometimes inhabitant of San Francisco I have a lot of smart, principled liberal friends like you. I also agree with you on several foreign policy issues. But this is where the rubber hits the road. Does my property belong to me or does it really belong to the state? Is ownership of property actual or purely hypothetical in our country? If it doesn't belong to me then either I shouldn't bother very work.... or I need to get my AR-15 out of the gun cabinet damn soon because âpolitician seasonâ is coming up. A free man or a free woman doesnât let their home, their business, or their property be seized by the authorities for no justifiable reason. As a liberal you may be happy with "gray areas" in the questions of individual property rights. As a conservative I emphatically, violently refuse to be comfortable with it. The Supreme Court is supposed to protect us from the shifting vagaries and fashions of jurisprudence by accurately interpreting the constitution as the Founding Fatherâs intended it. Thatâs their job, period. Jefferson was very clear on this point. In his June 12th, 1823 letter to William Johnson he said "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." It that in some manner vague? There may be room for argument when it comes to those issues that the Founders could not have foreseen, especially when it comes to advancing modern technology, but this is most emphatically not one of those. What do you think Washington, Jefferson, Adams, or Monroe would have said about this case? Itâs not too hard to figure out, is it, because they wrote their opinions into the constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says ânor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensationâ It very clearly states for public use, not for private use that may or may not benefit the public. The majority of libs on SCOTUS are so wrong on this it nearly brings tears to my eyes. Allow me to quote the late, great Oliver Cromwell when King Charles seized all of the gold being kept in trust in the Tower of London âMany a good merchant became a rebel upon that day.â |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-06-23 17:43 |
| #24 There's enough irony here to start a blast furnace. I wonder how the Kossacks and DU types can handle it. The great liberal judges that the Left loves, including international law fans Ginsburg and Kennedy, side with the evil rapacious capitalist land developers against the working-class homeowners. Who sticks up for the downtrodden? Scalia and Thomas, the arch-conservatives, who the Left hates with an all-consuming, seething, vein-popping passion. |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-06-23 16:33 |
| #23 Part of the problem is on a city level here. 40% of our elected officials are real estate developers. Just think about how many more will jump in now that there is MAJOR money to be made, both in development and kickbacks. Plus, there is no part of the constitution which says the state can seize your private property and give it to another private person or buisness. I also saw on another site where a person who dabbled in real estate wondering if this was going to pop the housing bubble. He sure wasn't going to invest any more in a project since a buisness had its eye on the same property that was going to be used for residential use. Strip mall vs homes. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-06-23 16:22 |
| #22 To my thinking, the issue isn't either judicial activism or what officials are elected. It is a fundamental infringement of property rights, based upon nothing but greed. Elected officials, especially at the local level, are no gurantor of an individual's rights. Tens of thousands of examples where greed, corruption, and machine politics have taken advantage of the individual are available. Judicial activists, prior to this incredibly BAD decision, could have been reversed at higher levels upon appeal. *poof* What appeals court would reverse an eminent domain decision, now? Sans nuance and irrelevant babble, what the individual had as his ultimate defender: redress, has been suddenly, and without due process or recourse, terminated. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-06-23 16:14 |
| #21 Normally I'm in agreement with your last statement (snarky as it was), but since many folks consider individual property ownership to be the underpinning of democratic society, this one I don't brush off so easily. And as another poster has noted, the temptation to use this as a political weapon will now loom large since it now has the blessing of the USSC. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-06-23 16:14 |
| #20 dread - as the majority pointed out, states can impose rules restricting what cities and counties do. If you dont like what New London does, go to the Connecticut legislature. Just what Scalia and fans want to tell everyone else, on everything else. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-06-23 16:02 |
| #19 Worst.Decision.Ever. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-06-23 15:58 |
| #18 LH, I believe you are missing the objections being raised here. I certainly am not asking for "judicial activism" and absolutely agree that elected officials are better suited to make these sort of decisions than judges. However, I am very concerned about what constitutes "public interest." O'Connors point sums it up best: cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. That is not judicial activism; that is keeping with the original intent of our Constitution. Now, hopefully, elected officials who engage in this practice get voted out, but somehow I doubt it. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-06-23 15:51 |
| #17 i have no strong opinion on this either way - Im amused though that the Majority ruling pointed out that whether a given project like a mall is really a public purpores is for ELECTED OFFICIALS to decide not JUDGES. IE all Scalia and pals, you're arguing FOR Judicial activism. Which dont bother me - I got nothing agin judicial activism, thats implicit in the constitution - and many folks more liberal than I am dont like this decision either. Quibble - ghetto is not the same as slum. slum is delapidated housing, where poor people live. Ghetto, properly speaking, is where a discriminated against minority lives. Original used was the Jewish Ghetto in Venice (it an Italian word) and was then applied to quarters to which jews were restricted elsewhere in europe. Beleive me, some of them had housing that was NOT slummy. The word was applied to black neighborhoods, at a time when residential segregation, restrictive covenants, etc existed. It has been extended in two ways - to neighborhoods where a group more or less voluntarily self-segregates - ergo "gay ghetto" or modern "jewish ghettos" or due, to the focus on black ghettos, which, esp after the departure of middle class blacks with integration, became slums, it is used to refer to slums generically. This is however a confusing, and thus bad, usage. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-06-23 15:35 |
| #16 Sickening--this is just disgusting. Further erosion of an individual's property rights and more power to the Nanny State. So much for the United States of America--let's just call it the People's Republic of America. |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-06-23 15:29 |
| #15 In The Land of Your Home is Your Castle and The Last Bastion of Property Rights, I consider this to be just about the most unAmerican decision The Supremes have ever made. Definitely a Top Five. The Founding Fathers, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, et al are spinning like mad. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-06-23 15:22 |
| #14 Something else I thought of at lunch. A tactic similar to this was used to grind Ireland into submission by the British in the 1800s. Who is to say that a liberal leaning city/state government, with money from one like say, George Soros, couldnât declare a heavily Republican area to be a spiffy location for 3 new shopping malls. Your land is mine, now disperse peasants! And if they declared it years in advance, the property values would plummet since no one would want to buy a house that was going to be demolished anyway and no one would upkeep what they had. This has happened many times in large cities like New York. So by the time the âfair market priceâ was paid, it would be half of what the original property was worth. This mistake by the âsupremeâ court opens up all sorts of doorways for the abuse of the common man. Property and land is power. Who ever controls the land, controls the people. If the people own the land, they own the power. If the government owns the land, the government owns the people. For the first time in my life, I am questioning the right of my own government to rule me. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-06-23 15:17 |
| #13 Sorry...meant to say 1st amendment |
| Posted by: Warthog 2005-06-23 15:08 |
| #12 I say have all the homeowners put up signs on their front door or lawns and state their beliefs. Any drive to remove would be a violation of Article 1.... |
| Posted by: Warthog 2005-06-23 14:53 |
| #11 You're exactly right, Dread. Neal Boortz (in Atlanta) has been making a BIG deal of this case. This is very bad news, as you notice (in the article) that the City not only seized land for a private developer to develop (not for "public purposes"), but did it in order to gain more taxes (the property coughs up more in property taxes as commercial vs. older residential). To me, the MOTIVE is just as important in this case as the fact that they did it for "Private" use (not public). |
| Posted by: BA 2005-06-23 14:37 |
| #10 I can see it to revise ghettos and other sites of urban decay But that's the problem. Who gets to say what is a ghetto or not? If you live in a neighborhood comprised of $200K homes, that's a ghetto if a developer decides that would be a great site for $750K homes. I understand that streets need to be widened, bridges need to be built, sewage plants sited, and we can't allow an individual or small group to hold a community hostage, but this strikes me as a gross perversion of eminent domain. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-06-23 14:33 |
| #9 MMurray, I believe there is a way for Congress to get rid of judges (I don't know if it's impeachment or outright "firing"), but the don't have the C.O.-Jones to do it. It's obvious (even before this case) that we couldn't rely on the Supreme Court to defend our rights, as they've already violated them in many other cases (McCain/Feingold being the most recent). This case was one of the few where I see the opportunity for the Repubs and the diehard Libertarians to join forces and fight this nonsense. There's NO reason for cities to take personal property (with the exception of what's allowed in the Constitution...like schools and roads), much less to seize it for private developers! I wouldn't even argue about "cleaning up" urban areas, unless it's a PUBLICLY-owned housing project or something like that. |
| Posted by: BA 2005-06-23 13:59 |
| #8 *yawn* Big deal. They already lay claim to part of your earnings. They shake you down every year for property taxes, and can seize your property if you neglect to pay. How does that joke go? "We've already established what you are, my dear. Now we're just negotiating the price." |
| Posted by: BH 2005-06-23 13:13 |
| #7 This is one of many instances that proove just how inprotant the fight over the judges appointments in this country is. The Dems are doing everything they can to hold on. The Republicans are being too cautioned in thier approach. The next 30-40yrs will be decided on how the court is stacked in the next couple of years. LLL court and we can expect less freedom more gov control and abuse of our rights constitutionalist will hopefully stabalize and maybe if we are lucky take the judicial system back a little to when things were sane. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2005-06-23 13:10 |
| #6 No. That is the problem. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-06-23 13:05 |
| #5 Here is another question: if several members of the Supreme Court obviously violated the Constitution in their decision, could they be impeached? Can judges be held accountable? |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-06-23 12:49 |
| #4 What would Europe do? - Justice Anthony Kennedy {SPIT} |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-06-23 12:44 |
| #3 I'm shocked. Is there any part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not yet abused in order to violate individual rights? Can Congress pass a law to properly delimit the meaning of the 5th amendment? maybe there should be a Republican watch group to quickly suggest appropriate legislation that upholds individual rights every time a Federal court violates the meaning of the Constitution. BTW this is the type of decision that would lead a Midas Mulligan to shrug. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-06-23 12:25 |
| #2 I can see it to revise ghettos and other sites of urban decay. In a situation where it is a good, historical neighborhood it isn't justified. Our society was buit around the idea that the good of the one outweighed the good of the many. Unlike communisim where the good of the many outweighed the good of the one or the few. Nice to see the individual rights are still being slowly eroaded. "" |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-06-23 11:45 |
| #1 Well, I guess the Justices won't mind when the hacks running DC decide to toss 'em out of their houses to build a line mall then, will they? |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-06-23 11:40 |