Don't be spurious. The government seized with intent to sell it back to the private developers (which may not even happen!). I don't blame the corporations here (anymore then I usually do), it certainly is the government in this case brazenly defying the constitution.
The "fair market value" (or "just compensation" for the sake of argument) is always a subjective term. In this case, I don't think the compensations offered to the property owners would be deemed as fair market values, since there was no open market bidding on these properties.
Fair market value is subjective, but you have to go by something. And I belive it was like only 3 out of 97 people or families who objected to having their homes bought out, so most thought it was a pretty good deal.
June 23, 2005, 11:15PM Liberalism bulldozes over society's little platoons By GEORGE F. WILL The country is bracing for a bruising battle over filling a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, a battle in which conservatives will praise "judicial restraint" and "deference" to popularly elected branches of government and liberals will praise judicial activism in defense of individual rights. But consider what the court did Thursday. Most conservatives hoped that, in the most important case the court would decide this term, judicial activism would put a leash on popularly elected local governments and would pull courts more deeply into American governance in order to protect the rights of individuals. On Thursday, conservatives were disappointed. The case came from New London, Conn., where the city government, like all governments, wants more revenues and has empowered a private entity, the New London Development Corp., to exercise the awesome power of eminent domain. It has done so to condemn an unblighted working-class neighborhood in order to give the space to private developers whose condominiums, luxury hotel and private offices would pay more taxes than do the owners of the condemned homes and businesses. The question answered Thursday was: Can government profit by seizing the property of people of modest means and giving it to wealthy people who can pay more taxes than can be extracted from the original owners? The court answered yes. The Fifth Amendment says, among other things, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (emphasis added). All state constitutions echo the Constitution's Framers by stipulating that takings must be for "public use." The Framers, who weighed their words, clearly intended the adjective "public" to circumscribe government's power: Government should take private property only to create things — roads, bridges, parks, public buildings — directly owned or primarily used by the general public. Fighting eviction from homes some of them had lived in all their lives, the New London owners appealed to Connecticut's Supreme Court, which ruled 4-3 against them. On Thursday they lost again. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling that drains the phrase "public use" of its clearly intended function of denying to government an untrammeled power to dispossess individuals of their most precious property — their homes and businesses. During oral arguments in February, Justice Antonin Scalia distilled the essence of New London's brazen claim: "You can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?" On Thursday the court said that the modifier "public" in the phrase "public use" does not modify government power at all. That is the logic of the opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. In a tart dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, noted that the consequences of this decision "will not be random." She says it is "likely" — a considerable understatement — that the beneficiaries of the decision will be people "with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." Those on the receiving end of the life-shattering power that the court has validated will almost always be individuals of modest means. So this liberal decision — it augments government power to aggrandize itself by bulldozing individuals' interests — favors muscular economic battalions at the expense of society's little platoons, such as homeowners and the neighborhoods they comprise. Dissenting separately, Justice Thomas noted the common law origins and clearly restrictive purpose of the Framers' "public use" requirement. And responding to the majority's dictum that the court should not "second guess" the New London city government's "considered judgment" about what constitutes seizing property for "public use," he said: A court owes "no deference" to a legislature's or city government's self-interested reinterpretation of the phrase "public use," a notably explicit clause of the Bill of Rights, any more than a court owes deference to a legislature's determination of what constitutes a "reasonable" search of a home. Liberalism triumphed Thursday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government. Conservatives should be reminded to be careful what they wish for. Their often-reflexive rhetoric praises "judicial restraint" and deference to — it sometimes seems — almost unleashable powers of the elected branches of governments. However, in the debate about the proper role of the judiciary in American democracy, conservatives who dogmatically preach a populist creed of deference to majoritarianism will thereby abandon, or at least radically restrict, the judiciary's indispensable role in limiting government. Link
Oh ok, I missed that. But you missed my first post: "I think they interpreted the "public use" phrase in the constitution too broadly"- Mr. Clutch, 2005
Exactly. Public utility != Public interests. But even if it's for public utility, I am very wary of the potential misconduct by concerted effort of government officials and private developers to turn private-turned public property into private again at a later "convenient time". Don't tell me it never happened.
Although I generally prefer judicial deference to the legislative branch, this is a horrible decision. And let the record show that the two Clinton appointees sided with the majority which included the predictably goofy Souter and Kennedy.
Won't it be more emphatic for you say the other way around - "the predictably goofy Souter and Kennedy sided with the two Clinton appointees"?
Would the lawyers out there please give me a little more information about how eminent domain cases are argued and decided when a judge has to make the final determination of value. I know how real estate appraisers work with the three methods of valuation but these do not allow for any type of sentimental value or mental anguish such as having to leave the historical family residence for instance. FYI: A real estate appraiser uses accepted methods and techniques of valuation for the preparation of an unbiased analysis of the nature, quality, value or utility of the real property being appraised. There are three recognized approaches to value: Sales Comparison Approach This approach compares similar, recently sold properties to the property being appraised. Income Approach This method estimates what a prudent investor would pay for the property based on the income the property produces. Cost Approach When this approach is used, an estimate is made for the cost to replace or reproduce the property being appraised.
i have not been involved in these sorts of suits before...and the last I remember studying it was in law school, about 8 years ago. but if i remember right, you rarely get real market value...and you definitely don't get consideration for sentimental value of externalities like that. someone who has some experience in it would know far more about this than me, though.
I don't think civil war is the proper term. 97% of Americans think the ruling is bogus. That would make an uprising more of a revolution then a civil war.
i'm happy to see so many people here...from different political backgrounds...so upset about this. that's a really good thing.
In California, with Prop 13, the State can now force some homeowners to sell. All those homeowners are "cheating" the treasury. Higher home price = greater taxable base = more taxes = public good
i just want to point out that this is what happens when single issue interest groups exert undue influence over the judicial selection process. for instance, does anyone think this case might have been decided differently had Bork been on the court? i'm not pointing fingers at either side here, just pointing out that actions often have unintended consequences. also, for those of you who have been particularly hard on justice thomas of late, it's worth noting he's been on the side of truth and light in both Raich and Kelo. maybe the court needs more pubic hair lovin' coke swillers.
and quel surprise, which side is the NYTimes on? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/o...b6f96a28a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss -- The Limits of Property Rights * E-Mail This * Printer-Friendly Published: June 24, 2005 The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain. Skip to next paragraph Readers Forum: Today's Editorials The city of New London has fallen on hard times. In 1998 - when its population was at its lowest since 1920, and its unemployment rate was nearly twice the state average - an effort was begun to turn New London around. State and local officials put together a redevelopment plan, anchored by a $300 million Pfizer research facility, that would bring restaurants, stores and a new Coast Guard museum to one hard-hit neighborhood. The city authorized a nonprofit development corporation to clear the necessary land by eminent domain, a forced sale in which the seller is given appropriate compensation. The development corporation got control of most of the land it needed, but a few people refused to sell. Eminent domain allows governments to take property for a public use, such as building a road. The property owners in New London claimed that handing over private property to a private developer cannot be a public use, even if it is part of a comprehensive plan to turn around a depressed city. The Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, sided with the city. The court noted that in past cases it had taken a broad view on this issue, and given governments wide discretion to determine when a taking of property meets this standard. New London, the court held, was within its rights to decide that its development plan was a valid public use. (The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.) In a blistering dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor lamented that the decision meant that the government could transfer any private property from the owner to another person with more political influence "so long as it might be upgraded." That is a serious concern, but her fears are exaggerated. The majority strongly suggested that eminent domain should be part of a comprehensive plan, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, underscored that its goal cannot simply be to help a developer or other private party become richer. That is not the situation in New London. Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.
