High court OKs personal property seizures Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities 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. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
Holy ****! This is a terrible ruling. How can this possibly be justified? "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."
look at how the justices came down on this. you may be surprised. i agree...horrible ruling. the Constitution calls for a public purpose. if expanding tax base can be the public purpose, then there is essentially no private property that is safe from this.
it doesn't surprise me at all. but it also doesn't surprise me that it surprises you and many others here. if you're gonna argue private property rights, you do it through guys like scalia and thomas.
It's now official, "This is a government of the corporations by the corporation and for the corporations...... Our government no longer cares for the common man. There was a case in St. Louis County, MO where the city of Richmond Heights was forcing a longtime bakery out of it place of business. The business owned its own land and building, but the city was taking the property so that a hotel and condos could be built across a major street from the St. Louis Galleria. Losing their own building will mean the bakery will be forced out of business because they can not afford to buy or rent a new location in the area. So basically the city is forcing a long time family business to go out of business. Let's see a show of hands of those who honestly feel that our government is heaeded in the right direction? Anyone? I for one feel like we are in a slow decline into the abyss.
This is a frightening thought. Public "good" could be contrived to include "muting dissent". The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this may signal the official birth of a secret oligopoly/socialism - heck this is socialist. I can't think of a more important aspect to Democracy and free speech then private property. This isn't the public good, this is transfer of private ownership.
private property is so foundational to the Constitution. you're right. this ruling is troubling. i think the state needs a more compelling issue than they'd like more money in their coffers to seize your home.
My thoughts exactly. I am beginning to wonder if both sides are in league with one another. You do some damage, I'll do some damage, the smokescreen of or bickering will hide the truth. I agree with Scalia, Thomas and O'Conner! It's early but I need a drink. Displacement of the poor or working class by force is not a good thing, no matter how you spin it.
On Monday rumors expect the resignation of Justice Rehnquist. I can only fear what corporate brown nose GWB will appoint next. <shudder>
Did you see which judges voted FOR the measure and which judges voted AGAINST the measure? The concervative judges voted AGAINST it.
This is a terrible decision and it makes me ill that any S.C. Justice would go along with it. I feel like I've been betrayed by the liberal members of the court. I realize that many East Coast cities have sufferring economies due to old (and often neglected), privately-owned homes, which hampers their ability to build new infrastructure that would revitalize the area. However, I think this ruling is a slippery slope that could allow cities to seize homes for marginally useful projects and does major damage to the Fourth Amendment. Does anyone have a link to the actual decision and dissents? - I'd like to read them and see if the court put any limitations on this.
