Supreme Court bends us over again.

[artimoff]

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
14 minutes ago



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.

"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.

[edwardmblake]

I disagree with this decision.

[artimoff]

So, If I own a house on land Wal-Mart want's to build a store on, the city can just take my house & bulldoze it even If I don't agree to sell to Wal-Mart. This ruleing doesn't come from the right-wing corperate friendly Justices, it comes from the left-wing of the court.


Fuckers! Were loosing our freedom from both sides.

[King of Mars]

*ahem*

http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=18025 (http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=18025)

[Kody]

Fucked up decision. I strongly disagree with this.

[Cth]

So, If I own a house on land Wal-Mart want's to build a store on, the city can just take my house & bulldoze it even If I don't agree to sell to Wal-Mart. This ruleing doesn't come from the right-wing corperate friendly Justices, it comes from the left-wing of the court.


Fuckers! Were loosing our freedom from both sides.

Well, they have to offer "fair market value" which people can never agree on what their house is worth.

As long as it doesn't get out of hand, I see no problem with it.

I know there's some people who absolutely refuse and dig in their heels when offered 3-4 times what their house is worth. Eventually, the city/etc has to condem the house and offer them only a little more than what it was worth.

Then, those people try to sue to get the 3-4 times that was offered at one point.

[ThisSpaceForRent]

As long as it doesn't get out of hand, I see no problem with it.


And who's the judge of that?
When they come for *your* house?

[TRILL, THE CARBON BASED LIFEFORM]

"Supreme Court bends us over again."

Oh, stop. You were making it sound appealing.

[Cth]

And who's the judge of that?
When they come for *your* house?

Well, from one perspective, this is better for states rights.

Ideally, you should be talking with your local representatives and pushing for limitations on how soon something can be sold after being declared such.

Working on better local representatives, so you won't have corruption.

Blahblahblah.

But not a single one of you will do that, I guarantee it.

Put up or shut up is all I'm saying.

I'd rather local government decide.

[sonnylarue]

Sanctimony at it's finest.

[Houdinimachine]

This makes me nauseated. What if the house has been lived in for generations? What if it has sentimental value? This is just plain wrong and needed to be overturned.

[adamgreenberger]

Just great...just home your house is not in the way of "progress"

[sonnylarue]

This makes me nauseated. What if the house has been lived in for generations? What if it has sentimental value? This is just plain wrong and needed to be overturned.

by who?

the Sc is the final word.

look how long dred scott took to be overturned.

[Captain Nate]

I'd rather local government decide.

I'd rather property rights be respected.

[Cth]

I'd rather property rights be respected.

A little late for that.

How long has eminent domain been in effect?

And people are just NOW complaining?

[Thudpucker]

I used to work for an Oil and Gas company, and I remember people talking about how the Government can seize your mineral rights too.

If enough your neighbors sign leases for an oil company to drill for oil and gas, the government can sieze your mineral rights and give them to the Oil Company wether you like it or not.

[TRILL, THE CARBON BASED LIFEFORM]

A little late for that.

How long has eminent domain been in effect?

And people are just NOW complaining?
Um, unless I'm completely wrong, eminent domain refers to property for pulic use, not private.

[Captain Nate]

A little late for that.

Well, now it is.


How long has eminent domain been in effect?

I'm not saying get rid of eminent domain, at least not yet, but it should be used PROPERLY. Kicking people out of their homes to sell to developers is not proper. Public use involves building a necessary government facility or some emergency structure to protect the nation. NOT to reward politically-tight businessmen (I can't call them capitalists because they're feeding off of our mixed economy rather than legitimately producing).

[lovewillkill]

This will get out of hand quickly.

I can already see that Disney will take advantage of this ruling to pressure the city of Anaheim to kick me out of my house, just so they can expand and build the west coast Epcot center they've wanted for the last 30 years.

lwk

[ChrisCollins]

Um, unless I'm completely wrong, eminent domain refers to property for pulic use, not private.

Not if the private entity will be of "sufficient" benefit to the public to warrant relocating the residents. Thats pretty much what this issue is about. How do you define what is and what isn't a benefit to the public? On the one hand I agree that this should be left up to the states (Which is what this ruling essentially says). Afterall the States are what originally owened the land not the federal government. (At least in most cases). However its very unnerving to think that any government can just come and take your house for any reason. I know there have been cases in the past where residents have taken up arms to defend their property in cases like this. Can you imagine if a home owner got shot and killed over the government trying to seize his house so the town could build a Walmart. The news channels would have a field day.

[Cth]

Not if the private entity will be of "sufficient" benefit to the public to warrant relocating the residents. Thats pretty much what this issue is about. How do you define what is and what isn't a benefit to the public? On the one hand I agree that this should be left up to the states (Which is what this ruling essentially says). Afterall the States are what originally owened the land not the federal government. (At least in most cases). However its very unnerving to think that any government can just come and take your house for any reason. I know there have been cases in the past where residents have taken up arms to defend their property in cases like this. Can you imagine if a home owner got shot and killed over the government trying to seize his house so the town could build a Walmart. The news channels would have a field day.

Exactly.

This is why people who are upset, should be doing everything they can to make sure their local government puts limitations in place to keep it from getting out of control.

I don't think anyone is thrilled about property being seized/sold, but it's happened ever since they started building railroads across the US.

The problem is, we have career politicians who don't represent the people. And unless pressure is brought to bear on the local reps, they'll just be bought off by local businesses.

Too many people are apathetic and don't kick these politicans out come each election. They just look for the familiar name (if they bother to vote) and we're stuck with the same people year after year.

[Captain Nate]

This will get out of hand quickly.

I can already see that Disney will take advantage of this ruling to pressure the city of Anaheim to kick me out of my house, just so they can expand and build the west coast Epcot center they've wanted for the last 30 years.

lwk

But think about all the textbooks for your public schools that tax revenue could provide! Stop being so selfish...

:boohoo:


Not if the private entity will be of "sufficient" benefit to the public to warrant relocating the residents.

So, benefiting "the public" is all that matters? At whose expense? Is it okay for the government to work you in a labor camp in order to raise money, as my sarcastic response above suggested, to buy textbooks for needy children? Does the benefit of others turn you into a slave for their use?

Nobody can act on behalf of "the public" because no such thing exists. A society is only a collection of individuals, not an entity with an identity of its own because no such thing exists. Therefore, you cannot act on behalf of the society if you have to violate the rights of one single individual that makes it up.

Society has no, single interest, it's always a collection of individuals with their own interests and if you pick one as the "interest of the public" you inevitably have to sacrifice certain individuals' interests to achieve it.

What results is a tyranny of the majority. Whichever group has the most votes on any issue, citing benefit of society, can plunder and exploit the minority. It becomes a form of gang rule, where the ruling gang has the force of government behind it to act wontonly and in any fashion that serves their interests at the expense of others.


the States are what originally owened the land not the federal government. (At least in most cases).

States owned the land? I thought PEOPLE owned land and that's what was the issue here!

[lovewillkill]

But think about all the textbooks for your public schools that tax revenue could provide! Stop being so selfish...

:boohoo:


I'm going to assume you're kidding. As much money as Anaheim supposedly gets from the parks (although I would guess this number is a lot lower than most people think it is), very little of it seems to go back into the city.

My biggest concern is that if we (Me, my wife and 8 week old daughter, 83 y.o. Grandma) get eminent domained, where would they move us? Our house recently appraised at $470,000. The only places in my entire county where we could get a house for that small amount are not neighborhoods that I would choose to live in. And we can't afford much more than that, especially with the kid starting day care soon.

Gotta love the O.C.

lwk

[Captain Nate]

I going to assume you're kidding. As much money as Anaheim supposedly gets from the parks (although I would guess this number is a lot lower than most people think it is), very little of it seems to go back into the city.

Of course I'm kidding. Problem is, all the collectivists who argue on behalf of the public good AREN'T kidding and they're perfectly happy taking your home from you.

[Cth]

States owned the land? I thought PEOPLE owned land and that's what was the issue here!

I think States/Government zones the land, and grants it to the people when they purchase it.

[Ray G.]

I responded in the other thread, so I'll just cut and paste my response here.

I'm nauseous. I can't believe that the 5 liberal justices voted in lockstep with the big corporations to end property rights in America. And make no mistake, that's exactly what happened. I previously thought that Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenquist had no regard for individual rights, but that's obviously wrong. I sincerely hope that the big businesses who try to screw people out of their homes reap what they sow. This is exactly the time we need civil disobedience. We have to send the message that this will not stand. And I'd like to thank the 5 RIGHT(in more ways than one) wing judges for making a stand for our rights. Let's hope John Paul Stevens has an overdue heart attack soon and has to retire, so Bush can put someone with some sense on the court, and we can get this reversed.

Fuck you, Wal-Mart.

Fuck you, Supreme Court.

Edit: Actually, Anthony Kennedy is sort of a Conservative justice, so I shouldn't generalize that the liberal justices voted to uphold this. I guess it was just the stupid justices.

[Captain Nate]

I think States/Government zones the land, and grants it to the people when they purchase it.

"Grant it to people" when they purchase it. *sigh* How far we have fallen from the founding fathers' vision...

[Boris the Blade]

Your country gets scarier by the day.

[Generic Poster]

Though it is rare for me to do so - I completely agree with the good Captain. This decision sickens me. I thought emminent domain was pretty clear cut - public roads, utilities, military bases, railroads. See? Easy.

Now Wal-Mart and whoever get to sidestep paying market rates for real estate by sending a few city councilmen on some golf trips. Ugh.

[Captain Nate]

Your country gets scarier by the day.

To be honest, I have nasty things to say about Canada, too. My problem with the violation of rights, especially property rights, goes doubly hard for your country. But it's not my country, not my immediate concern, so I'll bite my tongue.

[Cth]

"Grant it to people" when they purchase it. *sigh* How far we have fallen from the founding fathers' vision...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's always been this way since the big land rush way back when.

As far as founding father's visions go, sorry, you're in the wrong in this case. Look into their stances on states rights.

[TyPierce]

Um, unless I'm completely wrong, eminent domain refers to property for pulic use, not private.

Exactly.

Now, the local government gets to decide if having a Wal-Mart or strip mall or office complex or CVS is more important than your house. And I'd bet tax dollars to donuts they'll go for the retail/corporation every time.

Eminent domain is one thing. This is entirely another.

[DrMachine]

this really hits close to home for me, and absolutely terrifies me

[Smokinblues]

i don't necessarily disagree with the gist of the decision - that local lawmakers are better fit to deal with what's best for a local community than the federal courts are. And that local laws can be passed to restrict such behavior if necessary.

But I was hoping for a clear definition of public use.

[Boris the Blade]

To be honest, I have nasty things to say about Canada, too. My problem with the violation of rights, especially property rights, goes doubly hard for your country. But it's not my country, not my immediate concern, so I'll bite my tongue.
In the quiet words of the virgin Mary: Come again?

[Cth]

I just really hope everyone who is seriously nervous or upset does something about it.

Don't wait til they take your home. Actively contact your reps, make sure they know you want limitations put on this. And if not, then you will vote them out of office.

Not saying anything only tells them that no one is upset.

[Captain Nate]

In the quiet words of the virgin Mary: Come again?

You call my country scary, but as bad as things are here, your nation's respects for property rights and the rights of individuals is just as bad, if not (probably) much worse. But that's your country and I'm not going to spend time right now trashing it. It wouldn't be polite.

[Taxman]

You call my country scary, but as bad as things are here, your nation's respects for property rights and the rights of individuals is just as bad, if not (probably) much worse. But that's your country and I'm not going to spend time right now trashing it. It wouldn't be polite.


Ohhh . . border scirmish. :-o

[Boris the Blade]

You call my country scary, but as bad as things are here, your nation's respects for property rights and the rights of individuals is just as bad, if not (probably) much worse. But that's your country and I'm not going to spend time right now trashing it. It wouldn't be polite.
I'm just not sure how that's true. I haven't heard of anything outrageous, and if there's something, I would personally like to know. I'm not patriotic by any means. I'm not going to defend my country if they're doing something I don't like. If there's something going on that I'm not aware of, where the rights and property situations of the Canadian people are being infringed upon by it's government, I'd like to be aware.

[Captain Nate]

I'm just not sure how that's true. I haven't heard of anything outrageous, and if there's something, I would personally like to know.

I don't know Canada's expropriation laws, but I couldn't find at least a guarentee of "just compensation" in your constitution. But your rights to private property are violated in other ways. What do you call it when your government threatens to take a company's patents away from them? When a doctor isn't allowed to accept private patients? When you are taxed to support the care of someone else before your own health is brought into consideration?

Really, you share all the basic premises as the Majority opinion of the Supreme Court. Why are all the liberals here shocked as though this is a surprise? This is the ultimate result of a collectivist philosophy.

At least the US was founded on individual rights and still gives lip service to them.

[Boris the Blade]

I like public health care because privatized health care means you have to be making a lot of money or working for a company that provides health coverage just to get health care that is necessary for happy and healthy living. If I'm a college student that's working a shitty low-paying job while I go through school, and something happens like I get in a car accident and get seriously hurt, I don't have to go in debt for the rest of my life just to be taken care of. It puts everyone on the same level. Mind you, I think that public health care is dangerously underfunded, and that the waiting lists for surgical operations are even more dangerous, but I fundamentally agree with public health care, and the social safety net it provides. I get something for my tax dollars. It's a piss-off for some people, but it's better for society. I fail to see how a few tax dollars is tantamount to bulldozing people's homes because Wal-mart wants to lay a store down.

But let's not argue, because it's just going to be a clash of ideologies, and nothing will be accomplished.

[ChrisCollins]

So, benefiting "the public" is all that matters? At whose expense? Is it okay for the government to work you in a labor camp in order to raise money, as my sarcastic response above suggested, to buy textbooks for needy children? Does the benefit of others turn you into a slave for their use?

Nobody can act on behalf of "the public" because no such thing exists. A society is only a collection of individuals, not an entity with an identity of its own because no such thing exists. Therefore, you cannot act on behalf of the society if you have to violate the rights of one single individual that makes it up.

Society has no, single interest, it's always a collection of individuals with their own interests and if you pick one as the "interest of the public" you inevitably have to sacrifice certain individuals' interests to achieve it.

What results is a tyranny of the majority. Whichever group has the most votes on any issue, citing benefit of society, can plunder and exploit the minority. It becomes a form of gang rule, where the ruling gang has the force of government behind it to act wontonly and in any fashion that serves their interests at the expense of others.



States owned the land? I thought PEOPLE owned land and that's what was the issue here!

I completely agree with you I was just pointing out the extent to which the right of imminent domain had been pushed in recent years. The AP article implies that cities are now trying to use this law not just for freeways, hospitals, schools, etc., but for businesses and stadiums that can reap tax benefits. These benefits are considered in the interest of the public and thus property can be seized. It’s ridiculous, but that’s the reasoning.

As for the States owning the land instead of the people, of course individuals own the property now, but in the beginning it was the land of the State not the federal government. My point was if anyone should decide when it’s taken away it should be the States not the federal government.

[lovewillkill]

Of course I'm kidding. Problem is, all the collectivists who argue on behalf of the public good AREN'T kidding and they're perfectly happy taking your home from you.

The only people who really argue for the public good are people who financially benefit from you being kicked out of your home.

Although the more I think about it, the more this ruling doesn't change anything. It's already legal for communities to exert eminent domain over private property in most places. This is about the Federal government stating that they don't have the right to interfere with what individual communities decide.

So if this matters to any of you, the best thing to do is to stay vigilant and make sure your cities don't try to pull a fast one on you, like Anaheim tried to do a few decades ago.

lwk

[Captain Nate]

I like public health care because privatized health care means you have to be making a lot of money or working for a company that provides health coverage just to get health care that is necessary for happy and healthy living.

I'm glad you "like it" -- who cares how many people had to be enslaved to give it to you.

[Captain Nate]

I completely agree with you I was just pointing out the extent to which the right of imminent domain had been pushed in recent years. The AP article implies that cities are now trying to use this law not just for freeways, hospitals, schools, etc., but for businesses and stadiums that can reap tax benefits. These benefits are considered in the interest of the public and thus property can be seized. It’s ridiculous, but that’s the reasoning.

Know what else? Politicians in Washington DC also have decided to try and declare a Public Emergency and use eminent domain to seize patents for prescription drugs.

I know a lot of socialists here might jump for joy, but substitute for "prescription drugs" the word "creator royalties" and see how funny they think it is then.

[Shwicaz]

The house I am living in right now (and the neighborhood I live in now) was almost non existant today due to the fact that the city wanted to build a community college on our property/street.

My boyfriend, and a large group of gay people lived in the neighborhood at the time. They went to court, fought, and won. The community college is now located at the foot of the fill near our house.

[Captain Nate]

The only people who really argue for the public good are people who financially benefit from you being kicked out of your home.

That's the case with pretty much all government programs. It has become a gang war for pieces of the pie -- except everyone forgot the pie doesn't belong to the state, it belongs to individuals. Know WHY there are so many lobbyists out there? Because they're all scrambling to be given the title "the public" so that they can have some things done in THEIR personal interests, too!

[Jew Mafia]

I like public health care because privatized health care means you have to be making a lot of money or working for a company that provides health coverage just to get health care that is necessary for happy and healthy living. If I'm a college student that's working a shitty low-paying job while I go through school, and something happens like I get in a car accident and get seriously hurt, I don't have to go in debt for the rest of my life just to be taken care of. It puts everyone on the same level. Mind you, I think that public health care is dangerously underfunded, and that the waiting lists for surgical operations are even more dangerous, but I fundamentally agree with public health care, and the social safety net it provides. I get something for my tax dollars. It's a piss-off for some people, but it's better for society. I fail to see how a few tax dollars is tantamount to bulldozing people's homes because Wal-mart wants to lay a store down.

But let's not argue, because it's just going to be a clash of ideologies, and nothing will be accomplished.

Arguing without any thought or sensitivity or the the willingness to be open minded will get you nowhere, but debate and public discourse should always be encouraged. That being said, you're wrong about everything. :-P

[Ray G.]

Know what else? Politicians in Washington DC also have decided to try and declare a Public Emergency and use eminent domain to seize patents for prescription drugs.

I know a lot of socialists here might jump for joy, but substitute for "prescription drugs" the word "creator royalties" and see how funny they think it is then.

Good point. You have a free market, you've got to take the good with the bad. The government can't simply gangpress a corporation into doing their bidding.

[Boris the Blade]

I'm glad you "like it" -- who cares how many people had to be enslaved to give it to you.
Enslaved. Right.

It's ME in the country that was built on slavery.

[Boris the Blade]

Arguing without any thought or sensitivity or the the willingness to be open minded will get you nowhere, but debate and public discourse should always be encouraged. That being said, you're wrong about everything. :-P
Nanners nanners nanners. :p :D

[Captain Nate]

Enslaved. Right.

It's ME in the country that was built on slavery.

Oh yeah, because the British never had slavery and us Americans invented it after 1776.

[Boris the Blade]

Oh yeah, because the British never had slavery and us Americans invented it after 1776.
You're right. After all, it's not like the British had anything to do with America.

[Boris the Blade]

I'm leaving the pissing match, actually. These things always get childish, and I'm participating in it, and I'm gonna wash my hands of it. It's why I usually avoid these kinds of things.

[joespam]

Though it is rare for me to do so - I completely agree with the good Captain. This decision sickens me. I thought emminent domain was pretty clear cut - public roads, utilities, military bases, railroads. See? Easy.

Now Wal-Mart and whoever get to sidestep paying market rates for real estate by sending a few city councilmen on some golf trips. Ugh.

This is word-for-word how I feel.

[Captain Nate]

You're right. After all, it's not like the British had anything to do with America.

Or Canada. *raises eyebrow*