You just rent it.

Liberals!!!!!


WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court ruled 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 conflicts with individual property rights.

Thursday's 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.

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 (search) 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 (search) if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo (search) 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 (search) 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 (search), 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.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice (search), 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 (search), 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 is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

So the Supreme Court is majority Liberal and not 5 4 conservative? Did something happen over night that I'm not aware of?

What?

Just what Al Gore has always wanted. Confirmation by the Supreme Court for his socialistic agenda and he didn't even need to be elected President OR nominate any Justices.

:rolleyes:

Shead,

"So the Supreme Court is majority Liberal and not 5 4 conservative? Did something happen over night that I'm not aware of?"

You are not aware of so many things why draw the line here?

The case stems from liberal land grab tactics in the first place.

Stevens 'has held more liberal oipinions than Conservative
Kennedy, Is conservative
Souter, Was initally a conservative but has voted repeatedly not to over turn liberal laws of the 60's and 70's
Ginsburg should be considered independent she can go either way.
Breyer. Was appointed by Clinton and is somewhat moderate

Not a good ruling, and I'm sure Sims is dancing in the streets.

Interesting that the Supreme Court is now a liberal majority. So the liberals are now identified as taking measures to increase businesses and generating revenue to help the economy. I thought the conservatives always claimed to be about creating more business and such.

The libs are about land grabbing. It just so happens that in this case it benefits business as well as local govt.

The case has far less to do with the reason behind the land grab, so I think you may not be looking at the larger picture and the ramifications. The liberals are focused on the good of the "commons" and not on individuals rights.

Our democracy is morphing into something strange and I don't think we're going to like it, eventually.

So you don't think Souter didn't overturn the liberal laws of the 60's and 70's because oh I don't know, maybe they had merit.

TK, Aunty M,

A land grab for the "good of the commons" might traditionally be a liberal tactic, but this is a takings from individuals who probably are from both the liberal and conservative camps, by a city government, which is likely liberal in Conn., for the express benefit of well-heeled developers who invariably are conservative.

So how's this a "liberal" decision by the court? It ain't the homeowners, or even the city, that's gonna' make the money. It's the developer who makes the money. It always is. City governments tend to be stooges who conveniently act on behalf of developers.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g,

Take note of the morphing comment. It also applies to both political parties.

An agenda is an agenda, no matter the label. As our population grows, our personal freedoms and rights will continue to disintegrate. I don't see either party looking out for my individual rights anymore. I didn't expect it from the R's but I half expected the D's would. At least in the "olden" days.

A land grab is part of the liberal agenda or has been for a dozen years or more.

BW,

Not when his comments are about his concern about an agenda from the right or the left. He is attempting to keep it in the middle. I think they should be decided on merit and not in an attempt to balance.

Ya got that right.

You do in this state.

"At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight"

And guess who defines blight?

Tell that to the old lady that held out in Bremerton for a half dozen years. The area she lived in was a mostly black neighborhood. There were many decent, clean homes there and many others being renovated. Some of those people lived in their homes all their adult lives.

Alas, a few powerful people wanted to "complete" their plans for an "auto row" so they convinced the city council to "take" the properties.

Now we have 3X the accidents along that stretch of freeway because of rubber neckers trying to read electronic signs and look at cars on the lots. It's every bit as fugly as it was.

"You do in this state.

"At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight"


To me "blight" covers about 99% of the development in this state.

Yeah.

I guess the 5-4 split on the decision shows that there was pretty good footing for either side of this issue.

I personally think the ruling was bogus.

I don't remember the news show, but about a year ago... they did a story on homes "taken" by communities and "blight" was the excuse. Same circumstances though. Big business needed the land.

None of the homes shown were in blighted areas and all were in decent shape.

So much for the rule of law. :rolleyes:

Taking someones home is wrong, taxing them out of their home is wrong.

Aunty M,

Although I'm opposed to it, taking homes under eminent domain for business development (which I agree with your example, and it's looks like a blight) is oh, so American.

I keep meaning to read, "When Corporations Rule the World" but I'm afraid it'll make me depressed.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.