PDA

View Full Version : Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108



Valthissa
06-23-2005, 11:14 AM
I really don't know what to say. It's just beyond my comprehension that 5 rational adults could think that giving local government's the right to seize property, even 'fairly compensated' property, for private use is somehow constitutional.

I don't even look forward to reading the decision.

C/Valth

Wezas
06-23-2005, 11:18 AM
eh, you have a link?

CrystalTears
06-23-2005, 11:18 AM
Yeah cause if this is happening in New London of all places, I'd like to read about it.

Skirmisher
06-23-2005, 11:24 AM
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes <-------Click me i'm a link ! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property;_ylt=AlAUw2agg_WE6Z2ZpB8hi s6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

Here we go.

And article is below.





By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

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.

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."

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.

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.

CrystalTears
06-23-2005, 11:27 AM
:wtf2: That's insane.

Skirmisher
06-23-2005, 11:28 AM
Yeah, they are using Emminent Domain more and more here in Jersey too for similar uses.

I think once in a great while where there is a overwhelming need its understandable, but greed is taking over here I think.

Valthissa
06-23-2005, 11:55 AM
Emminent Domain has never been allowed for private use, and that's the core issue here. It's certainly useful in building roads, railways, etc. for the benefit of the public.


C/Valth - I'm going to be doing more due diligence next month so my usual low rate of posting will probably decline.

theotherjohn
06-23-2005, 11:57 AM
unbelievable

DeV
06-23-2005, 12:03 PM
This is straight bullshit.

CrystalTears
06-23-2005, 12:04 PM
Well it's making me reevaluate my desire to own a home here, which is a shame because I really love this town.

Looks like I'll have to go out of the county when we go house shopping next year. Le sigh.

theotherjohn
06-23-2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by CrystalTears

Looks like I'll have to go out of the county when we go house shopping next year. Le sigh.

as you say I am negative nancy so...

better hope the county area is not suitable for a park

Parkbandit
06-23-2005, 12:09 PM
It must be some liberal plot. :D

I can understand the seizing of homes/property for things like roads, schools... something for the public, but an office park where people are making money off your property? That's nonsense.

Skirmisher
06-23-2005, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Valthissa
Emminent Domain has never been allowed for private use, and that's the core issue here. It's certainly useful in building roads, railways, etc. for the benefit of the public.



Well as I said, they have used it here in NJ several times at least iin the past year.

It has become an issue written about in the paper more than once.

The rationalgiven si that the economy gets such a boost from the newer planned developement that it is a need and a benefit for the public.

I think it's a potential dagger at the heart of the sanctity of private property.

Valthissa
06-23-2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Valthissa
Emminent Domain has never been allowed for private use, and that's the core issue here. It's certainly useful in building roads, railways, etc. for the benefit of the public.



Well as I said, they have used it here in NJ several times at least iin the past year.

It has become an issue written about in the paper more than once.

The rationalgiven si that the economy gets such a boost from the newer planned developement that it is a need and a benefit for the public.

I think it's a potential dagger at the heart of the sanctity of private property.

ah, I poked around a bit....

Shore housing being taken by localities for condo development in NJ. Nasty business, that.

I saw a few references to possible corruption so maybe there is a remedy in pace for some of those takings.

C/Valth

Warriorbird
06-23-2005, 01:12 PM
It is a messed up day when I agree with a Rehnquist opinion.

Back
06-23-2005, 01:49 PM
All hail the mighty $$.

Gan
06-23-2005, 08:20 PM
Too bad those city councils are going to look up one day and realize they've replaced all their residents with shopping malls and businesses.

The Justices and how they sided:
Majority:
John Paul Stevens - Ford nominee
David Souter - Bush Sr. nominee
Ruth Ginsburg - Clinton nominee
Stephen Breyer - Clinton nominee
Anthony Kennedy - Regan nominee

Dissent:
Sandra O'Connor - Reagan nominee
William Rehnquist- Reagan nominee
Antonin Scalia - Reagan nominee
Clarence Thomas - Bush Sr. nominee

I'm a Republican, and a Capitalist, and yet I find this extreme hard to swallow. Hell, I even agree with states rights - which is part of what this case is about, but still, I do not condone the idea or practice of dislocating people from their homesteads for commercialism, regardless of the 'fair' offer of compensation that is made.

Bad move, and the long run implications are scary. Perhaps it will take some relocating of the politicians summer homes in the Hamptons for some beachfront resorts to get them to think clearer on this issue.

Valthissa
06-23-2005, 08:41 PM
Justice Thomas' dissent

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD1.html

I've read O'connor too.

On to the majority opinion.

I'm just beside myself. I think I'll become a single issue voter. Introduce legislation to guarantee my property rights (one of the three underlying requirements for a free society) or I won't vote for you.

C/Valth

Gan
06-23-2005, 09:42 PM
Just saw a CNN poll:

Local governments should be able to seize homes and businesses:

For public use 33% 56747 votes

For private economic development 1% 2375 votes

Never 66% 113282 votes

Total: 172404 votes

Fengus
06-23-2005, 10:17 PM
Welp, be sure to become active in local government so your house isn't taken. No pity for Kelo, in such a small town you'd think you'd know the people you voted in.

I can't agree with the interpretation of Public Use but I can't quite figure out how any of the Justices bowed down to private buisness, they have life terms to avoid just that sort of conflict. Unless she's suggesting they are taking bribes which is possible I guess.