SCOTUS: High court OKs personal property seizures (NSR)

[13]

From --> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/sc....ap/index.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- 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.

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 have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes 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, Connecticut, 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.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

All I have to say is ... wow.

[Powder Seeker]

Damn government, what's next?

[Tippster]

As a homeowner I am ashamed to find myself siding with the wing of the Court that I can't stand - Scalia, Thomas, and "Captain" Rehnquist.

[pube-in-my-taco]

First off, I'd like to comment that, regardless of what you read on the internet, the illusion that liberals care only about "the people" and conservatives only care about "business" is simply untrue. That may be a perception that has grown during the Bush Administration, but hopefully when you look at pure ideology this decision will make clear that there is a fundamental difference in opinion between the two groups that influenced this decision - and that is, when you filter through all the tertiary and sometimes inconsequential details of the ideology you'll come to one gem that is continually harped on by this country's libertarians - the government does not have the right to do certain things.

Constraint of power is a powerful concept in the U.S. and was a crucial point to the Framers - just look at the Tenth Amendment. In recent decades, however, a scary trend has been taking place where the power of the Government is continually becoming less and less constrained. A decision like this would have been unthinkable prior to the New Deal, but because of the Government's lack of restraint lately, it's not surprising today. That doesn't make it any less wrong, however.

What is clear in today's decision is that the conservatives on the court value this restaint more than the liberals when coming to business - which is exactly the opposite of public perception. The problem is that the relatively pure ideologies of the members on the court don't influence public perception of conservative vs. liberal values. The reason is greasing that goes on with the regular rank-and-file politicians - and the sad fact is that while both sides get their share of grease, the Republicans (note I did not say conservatives) take more grease from corporate interests than the Democrats, particularly during the Bush Administration. This is not to say the Democrats aren't corrupt either - but it should be clear to everybody that the party in power is a more attractive target to mega-corporations and their lobbyists.

There are two things I abhor about the U.S. government: political parties, and lobbies (both for profit and non-profit.) Changes in the way these two factors relate to each other are the reason the restraint that our government was so good at for 150 years has completely broken down in the 20th century, and there's no reason to believe it won't continue to break down in the 21st century.

Perhaps today's decision will cause folks to realize what's going on about their rights slowly being squelched from them, but with a majority of U.S. citizens not being able to name even one supreme court justice, I doubt it. Partisan politics keeps things simplified and the people satisfied.

(edited to correct spelling and grammar)

[1080Rider]

I don't think this really fits into a political type decision, but it doesn't surprise me that the liberal justices found that the gov't knows what's best for us. That's my big beef w/ liberalism. Be that as it may, whether this was a conservtive or liberal decision it still is a FUCKED decision. I can't even believe it really went down... pretty scary shit if you ask me.

[daPig]

Big Government 2, Personal Freedom 0

First the whole medical marijuana fiasco, now this!

I hate politics

[Viva]

Next up... hanging flag burners and expansion of PATRIOT II.

[13]

Patriot has actually been reduced a tad.

[Core Shot]

Well said Pube.

Maybe original intent or judicial restraint aint such a bad thing afterall.

There is a huge difference between conservative politcians and conservative judges.
Both political liberals and politiical conservatives should be in favor of the judicial branch keeping a check on the power of the legislature by being conservative. Particularly since the judges are accountable to no one.

Y'know who this ruling helps? Fat cat politically connected developers (both Democrat and Republican) who get the towns and cities to do their site acquisition for them.
Oh, and don't give me the bullshit about increased real estate taxes, since most of these deals include 20+ year tax abatements as part of the handout, in addition to the almost free financing.

[Spats]

I have to go with the conservatives on this one, because they're actually advocating something that increases personal freedom. I just wish they were consistent about it.

Big asshat developers run everything already, which is why the USA is an ugly maze of identical townhomes, ranchettes, and strip malls from coast to coast. It's nearly impossible for an actual person to buy a single small plot of land and build their own house near any major city, because the developers lock everything up with the planning commission and city council. It's just like printing money for them, because the dollar amounts are so large that no individual can participate in the process.

[shamrockpow]

I have to go with the conservatives on this one, because they're actually advocating something that increases personal freedom. I just wish they were consistent about it.

Big asshat developers run everything already, which is why the USA is an ugly maze of identical townhomes, ranchettes, and strip malls from coast to coast. It's nearly impossible for an actual person to buy a single small plot of land and build their own house near any major city, because the developers lock everything up with the planning commission and city council. It's just like printing money for them, because the dollar amounts are so large that no individual can participate in the process.

You stole my comments, so I'll just say "DITTO"

[splat]

There's hundreds of millions of people in the US whose fate is decided by politicians collecting envelopes on their way to vote. They don't read the bills they pass, but rather take the advice of those influenced by lobbyists who make the payoffs. They have no idea what the bills they pass even say. The Patriot Act is a prime example. A Libertarian organization is trying to get a bill passed that would require congressmen to actually read the bills they pass, but they've hit some real roadblocks with it. Gee, it seems to make sense, but it's the last thing Congress wants. Here's what they say.........

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|* |


Opportunities and dangers are mounting faster than
we can address them. We've heard from another
Congressman about our "Read the Bills Act." (RTBA).
His name is Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and he now has a
form letter he's sending to his constituents. He
says:

"Thank you for expressing your support for the
'Read the Bills Act,' an initiative of the
libertarian lobby group Downsize DC."

He mentions no other group. He only mentions us and
our proposal, because we are the ones making this
happen!

"The sentiment behind this proposal... is a
commendable one... Unfortunately, Downsize
DC's proposal is a fairly obvious effort to
block any action by Congress at all. (He then
lists all the requirements of our bill)."

He's read our bill and understands it. But his
reaction leaves him wide open to a charge of
irresponsibility. He's essentially saying that
Congress should be permitted to exercise less
diligence and responsibility than your neighborhood
lawyer or accountant. It's the old political double-
standard - do as I say and not as I do. He then goes
on to say...

"I am developing legislation that would
meaningfully and practically reform the House
rules to give every representative an
opportunity to look over pending legislation
before casting a vote."

He sees a chance for publicity. But he doesn't want
real reform. He wants to steal, exploit and corrupt
our proposal. We cannot let this happen!!!

We must expand our campaign to promote our version of
RTBA, and promote it to the media and the public, so
phony reforms can't gain traction in the public mind.
We need a media campaign to start with, but we
haven't had the budget to do that yet - in fact,
we're not even close.

Thank you. More soon.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

[Jumper Bones]

Allow me to be Capt. Obvious and say...wow. Well this blows. This here is some bull-shyit. Way to go SCOTUS...

How the fuck can they justify this? Economic flow is good for the area, and therefore is a public benefit? Riiiiiight.

[Core Shot]

They don't read the bills they pass, but rather take the advice of those influenced by lobbyists who make the payoffs. They have no idea what the bills they pass even say. The Patriot Act is a prime example. A Libertarian organization is trying to get a bill passed that would require congressmen to actually read the bills they pass, but they've hit some real roadblocks with it.

What about limiting Bills to no more than X pages (100??) or Y words?

The huge problem is the development of the "Omnibus" Bill which is thousands of pages and contains hundreds or thousands of laws and provisions. Shit gets snuck in or tacked on by little congressional peons and staffers.

If the shit were required to be shorter, it could be more easily understood (and read), and there would be more accountability for what was being voted on (and less logrolling backscratching bullshit).

VIVA LOS LIBERTARIANS!!!!

[Core Shot]

BTW, I have been to this area of NewLondon, near Fort Trumbull, and it is hardly a blighted ghetto. the homes are well kept, clean and tidy.
I think their main push is that things are a little too "ethnic" for their planned marina hotel conference center.

The Fort Trumbull area is situated on a peninsula that juts into the Thames River. The area comprises approximately 115 privately owned properties, as well as the 32 acres of land formerly occupied by the naval facility (Trumbull State Park now occupies 18 of those 32 acres). The development plan encompasses seven parcels. Parcel 1 is designated for a waterfront conference hotel at the center of a "small urban village" that will include restaurants and shopping. This parcel will also have marinas for both recreational and commercial uses. A pedestrian "riverwalk" will originate here and continue down the coast, connecting the waterfront areas of the development. Parcel 2 will be the site of approximately 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development, including the state park. This parcel also includes space reserved for a new U. S. Coast Guard Museum. Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square feet of research and development office space. Parcel 4A is a 2.4-acre site that will be used either to support the adjacent state park, by providing parking or retail services for visitors, or to support the nearby marina. Parcel 4B will include a renovated marina, as well as the final stretch of the riverwalk. Parcels 5, 6, and 7 will provide land for office and retail space, parking, and water-dependent commercial uses. 1 App. 109-113.

More interesting is the way the dissent characterized the plan:

Petitioners own properties in two of the plan's seven parcels--Parcel 3 and Parcel 4A. Under the plan, Parcel 3 is slated for the construction of research and office space as a market develops for such space. It will also retain the existing Italian Dramatic Club (a private cultural organization) though the homes of three plaintiffs in that parcel are to be demolished. Parcel 4A is slated, mysteriously, for " 'park support.' " Id., at 345-346. At oral argument, counsel for respondents conceded the vagueness of this proposed use, and offered that the parcel might eventually be used for parking. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...0&invol=04-108

Where is the line between "public" and "private" property use? We give considerable deference to legislatures' determinations about what governmental activities will advantage the public. But were the political branches the sole arbiters of the public-private distinction, the Public Use Clause would amount to little more than hortatory fluff. An external, judicial check on how the public use requirement is interpreted, however limited, is necessary if this constraint on government power is to retain any meaning. See Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U. S. 439, 446 (1930) ("It is well established that ... the question [of] what is a public use is a judicial one").

This case returns us for the first time in over 20 years to the hard question of when a purportedly "public purpose" taking meets the public use requirement. It presents an issue of first impression: Are economic development takings constitutional? I would hold that they are not. We are guided by two precedents about the taking of real property by eminent domain. In Berman, we upheld takings within a blighted neighborhood of Washington, D. C. The neighborhood had so deteriorated that, for example, 64.3% of its dwellings were beyond repair. 348 U. S., at 30. It had become burdened with "overcrowding of dwellings," "lack of adequate streets and alleys," and "lack of light and air." Id., at 34. Congress had determined that the neighborhood had become "injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare" and that it was necessary to "eliminat[e] all such injurious conditions by employing all means necessary and appropriate for the purpose," including eminent domain. Id., at 28. Mr. Berman's department store was not itself blighted. Having approved of Congress' decision to eliminate the harm to the public emanating from the blighted neighborhood, however, we did not second-guess its decision to treat the neighborhood as a whole rather than lot-by-lot. Id., at
34-35; see also Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 244 ("it is only the taking's purpose, and not its mechanics, that must pass scrutiny").

In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public--such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words "for public use" do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.

The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. Cf. Bugryn v. Bristol, 63 Conn. App. 98, 774 A. 2d 1042 (2001) (taking the homes and farm of four owners in their 70's and 80's and giving it to an "industrial park"); 99 Cents Only Stores v. Lancaster Redevelopment Authority, 237 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (CD Cal. 2001) (attempted taking of 99 Cents store to replace with a Costco); Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit, 410 Mich. 616, 304 N. W. 2d 455 (1981) (taking a working-class, immigrant community in Detroit and giving it to a General Motors assembly plant), overruled by County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 415, 684 N. W. 2d 765 (2004); Brief for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty as Amicus Curiae 4-11 (describing takings of religious institutions' properties); Institute for Justice, D. Berliner, Public Power, Private Gain: A Five-Year, State-by-State Report Examining the Abuse of Eminent Domain (2003) (collecting accounts of economic development takings).


Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

Even Clarence Thomas' dissent is well written, and his conclusion belies his alleged status as an Uncle Tom sellout:

The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called "urban renewal" programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect "discrete and insular minorities," United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages "those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms" to victimize the weak. Ante, at 11

[divegirl]

Big asshat developers run everything already, which is why the USA is an ugly maze of identical townhomes, ranchettes, and strip malls from coast to coast. It's nearly impossible for an actual person to buy a single small plot of land and build their own house near any major city, because the developers lock everything up with the planning commission and city council. It's just like printing money for them, because the dollar amounts are so large that no individual can participate in the process.

Amen. And, I wholeheartedly disagree with this decision by the supreme court.

[13]

After reading those opinions ... Holy fucking shit.

May the lawyers that won the case rot in hell.

[TomK]

Unconsionable. We are on the downside as a culture.

Even the Bill Gates of his day, Rockefeller respected the right of a landowner to decide the fate of his own property. When the owner of one corner building on the block refused to sell, the architects were told to change the building facade so that the syscraper ended up with a balancing mass on the opposite side.

[mr_gyptian]

again, the assaults on Federalism by this court continue to mount.

but isn't this decision kind of a reinforcement of what is already law?

[summit]

Fucking communists!

Another sad day for our rights.

"When they kick down your door,
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head?
Or on the trigger of your gun!"

Patriot has actually been reduced a tad.

Small solice...

[Plakespear]

You know some executive at Intrawest jizzed about 2 pints of semen when this decision was announced.

[Tippster]

...but isn't this decision kind of a reinforcement of what is already law?

GODDAMMIT!



Yes, it is.



One could also argue that this decision supports federalism by reinforcing the local and State laws argued in the lower courts with some "Federal Cachet." Remember, most cases have been ongoing for YEARS before they reach the SCOTUS level.

[Artie Fufkin]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

All I have to say is ... wow.

I am a supporter of Urban Renewal, Infill, etc. I grew up in Cleveland and saw firsthand how these concepts could bring a city back to life.

On the other I do not agree with "Eminent Domain." I saw a news story on a family's home that was threatened in Norwood, OH(I was formally a resident of Norwood while attending Xavier University) by a city citing Eminent Domain so they could build condos and offices at the expense of long time homeowners.

If a homeowner voluntarily sells their home or land for commercial development that's okay, if a homeowner's home or land is seized by the government for commercial development, that is not okay.

[13]

I am a supporter of Urban Renewal, Infill, etc. I grew up in Cleveland and saw firsthand how these concepts could bring a city back to life.

I'm all for it too.

Detroit would benefit big time from this sort of thing if done on a massive scale, just not at the cost of forcibly pushing people out.

After this ruling, I'm hoping that there are measures in place to discourage companies & cities from taking advantage of this to their fullest extent, because you know they will.

[bklyn]

Developers have been dancing on the fine line of eminent domain for years, finally they've got this decision which gives them carte blanche.

All they have to do is buy some local politico, and your house could be next. Oh - it has nice views of the mountains - your log cabin is blighted... let's bring in the latest base village expansion project.

Here in Brooklyn, this has been a really big deal, where they plan to raze 24 acres for the Nets stadium. (note a stadium requires only 10% of that space) I don't know how you could say an area is blighted when condos are going for over $1M, but when you've got friends in Albany....

http://www.developdontdestroy.org/whatswrong.php