High Court: Property Can Be Seized for Private Development
by Nina Totenberg

Morning Edition, June 23, 2005 · The Supreme Court rules that local governments can seize a person's home or business in order to make way for private economic development. The 5-to-4 decision was a defeat for seven Connecticut property owners whose homes are slated to be torn down for a development project that would include a hotel and offices.

The key word here is PRIVATE.

" The Supreme Court gave local governments broad power today to bulldoze homes and other private property to make way for business development, a ruling that could encourage more city-backed plans to replace small stores with big-box retailers.

The 5-4 ruling upheld a plan by officials in a coastal Connecticut town to condemn nine homes of longtime residents that would be replaced with an office complex and a marina.


Economic development emerged as the clear winner.

The high court's opinion goes further than before in allowing the government to invoke its "eminent domain" and to seize private property from unwilling sellers.

The Constitution says government may take private property "for public use" if it pays the owners "just compensation." Originally, public use meant the land was used for roads, canals or military bases.

In today's decision, the court went a step further and said officials need not claim they were condemning blighted properties or clearing slums. Now, as long as officials hope to create jobs or raise tax collections, they can seize the homes of unwilling sellers, the court said. This "public purpose" is a "public use" of the land, the court said in Kelo vs. New London.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," said Justice John Paul Stevens.

Judges should give city councils and state legislatures "broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power," he added.

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined him.

The dissenters said the court was ignoring the basic rights to private property that were written into the Constitution.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said all property was now potentially subject to seizure.

"Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory," she said.

Justice Clarence Thomas said that the impact of these redevelopment plans falls heaviest on the poor, minorities and the elderly.

Suzette Kelo, the New London, Conn. homeowner who sued to save her home, said she was "very disappointed the court sided with powerful government and business interests."

Dana Berliner, one of her attorneys at the Institute for Justice in Washington, called it a "dark day for American homeowners. Every home, small business or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the court, that's good enough reason for eminent domain."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-062305scotus_lat,0,6924206.story?coll=la-home-headlines

************************************************** ************************************************** ***

Sandra Day O'Connor said the ruling favored the "well-heeled" over the average american, and was not the original intent of the constitution.

I bet a lot of people expected the "right side" of the court to favor big business. The Supreme Court isn't divided into conservative vs. liberal or right vs. left. It's more government control vs. less government control.

And all of politics is Top V Bottom. Thats what I've been saying all along. If congress and the WH were looking to paint the judiciary as tyrannical that got the best set up in history now.

Just another example of how you are not free in America. Now most people argue with this and say 'I'm Free.' Thats only because they haven't pulled on the leash yet. You are free only so long as someone who is 'free-er' doesn't come along and desire or despise what you got going.

Time to impeach a supreme court justice or 2 or 5

Originally posted by Quertol
Time to impeach a supreme court justice or 2 or 5
They can't be impeached.

I bet if theyt siezed some rich pepoles land to build "affordable housing" you would be high fiving each other

Originally posted by BorgHunter
They can't be impeached.

Actually they can.


Justices serve lifetime appointments. Under the Constitution they can be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There is no precise standard for determining whether a justice has committed an impeachable offense, though the consensus is that removal should be for criminal or ethical lapses, not for partisan political reasons. No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached. In 1805 Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in the House by his political enemies, but the Senate failed to convict when it became apparent that Chase’s opponents were after him not because he had committed any wrongdoing but because they disagreed with his decisions. The possibility of impeachment may have been a factor in the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas, who left the Court in 1969 after allegations surfaced that he had accepted a questionable fee from a private foundation. Some conservative groups rallied for the removal of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1960s, but their efforts failed.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302_2/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States.html

Originally posted by Travh20
I bet if theyt siezed some rich pepoles land to build "affordable housing" you would be high fiving each other

:rolleyes:

Another great response Trav...don't talk about the subject when you can make some objectionable inference about another poster instead...

Originally posted by Vilepagan

Another great response Trav...don't talk about the subject when you can make some objectionable inference about another poster instead...

What a gay response! ;)

Trav, I can never tell what you're actually in favor of, you just complain about everything peripherally.

Glad someone posted this, 'cause I was going to do it myself. Locally, one of the suburbs declared a perfectly normal residential area to be "blighted" so that they could knock all of the houses down and build an upscale "lifestyle mall." Totally outrageous.

This ruling is an absolute disgrace.

To think that the government can simply choose to appropriate your property is a scary concept.

Everyone is desheartened by this, yet if (when) President Bush nominates a conservative, original intent justice for the Supreme Court, some on this thread will have a seizure.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
What a gay response! ;)

Here's a gay response for ya...::beats Lionel about the head and shoulders with a Gucci handbag:: :D


Trav, I can never tell what you're actually in favor of, you just complain about everything peripherally.

Seems that way doesn't it. I'm not sure he's in favor of things so much as interested in bashing liberals.


Glad someone posted this, 'cause I was going to do it myself. Locally, one of the suburbs declared a perfectly normal residential area to be "blighted" so that they could knock all of the houses down and build an upscale "lifestyle mall." Totally outrageous.

Lovely suburb. I think the problem is that they're trying to run their governments too much like businesses. Bringing in money is important, but it shouldn't be the driving force behind government.

Originally posted by Brooks
Everyone is desheartened by this, yet if (when) President Bush nominates a conservative, original intent justice for the Supreme Court, some on this thread will have a seizure.

While I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, the original problem rests with the local government that decided to seize someone's property. The citizenry still has it within their power to change the law, or convince their local governments not to abuse this power.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
While I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, the original problem rests with the local government that decided to seize someone's property. The citizenry still has it within their power to change the law, or convince their local governments not to abuse this power.

And how do they do that?

The only protection was removed by the supreme court.

Originally posted by DrewM
And how do they do that?
By voting for the right people and sending their local officials letters, obviously. The Supreme Court merely ruled that laws regarding seizure of property for the reasons given are not unconstitutional. This doesn't mean that localities are not allowed to make laws prohibiting such unreasonable seizure of property.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
By voting for the right people and sending their local officials letters, obviously. The Supreme Court merely ruled that laws regarding seizure of property for the reasons given are not unconstitutional. This doesn't mean that localities are not allowed to make laws prohibiting such unreasonable seizure of property.

Doesn't matter who you vote in - they have the right to evict you - the supreme court provided the green light.

Plus - when the bulldozers are knocking down your house - the last thing you want to hear is vote in the right people. People get voted in on the color of their hair or how nice their smile looks on TV - nothing much more.

Originally posted by DrewM
Plus - when the bulldozers are knocking down your house - the last thing you want to hear is vote in the right people.
Well, what if I told you that I'm not actually from Guildford after all, but from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse?

Anybody seen the film version of that yet? I watched the original BBC series when it was first shown (I was a kid when that was on) - I doubt the film comes close.

Originally posted by DrewM
Anybody seen the film version of that yet? I watched the original BBC series when it was first shown (I was a kid when that was on) - I doubt the film comes close.
You're dead on: It doesn't. Still pretty good, though.

There have always been ways for government to acquire your home.
I was in Houston, Harris County,Tx, about 25 years ago, when the local government wanted an old man's home and land for a development.
The old man refused to sell. He was old and had been born on the property and wished to spend his last years on the property that had been in the family for a few generations.
The locals rezoned his property and then re-evaluated it in the millions of dollars and eventually claimed the property because the old man could not pay the greatly increased taxes.

I still remember the Sheriff escorting the old man off his property as a trespasser.

Originally posted by DrewM
Anybody seen the film version of that yet? I watched the original BBC series when it was first shown (I was a kid when that was on) - I doubt the film comes close.

The first three books are fantastic. Skip the fourth.

Everyone is desheartened by this, yet if (when) President Bush nominates a conservative, original intent justice for the Supreme Court, some on this thread will have a seizure.
I'd be fine if he was to nominate a conservative, but he just wants to nominate more corporate weasels who would've agreed with the supreme court ruling.

By voting for the right people and sending their local officials letters, obviously. The Supreme Court merely ruled that laws regarding seizure of property for the reasons given are not unconstitutional. This doesn't mean that localities are not allowed to make laws prohibiting such unreasonable seizure of property.
Same thing'll happen. They'll get paid off. Also, for some reason we've gotten to the point that Federal laws just flat out overrule State laws and State laws just flat out overrule local laws. You'll have to have a nice state. And then when the first corporation tries to do it, they sue and bring it to the supreme court and your law gets shot down.

Originally posted by Blibblob

I'd be fine if he was to nominate a conservative, but he just wants to nominate more corporate weasels who would've agreed with the supreme court ruling.

Scalia, who Bush frequently claims is the ultimate juror, dissented in this opinion, as did Rhenquist, so Bush-type judges might agree with us.

Arizona State University siezes property

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0625phxcondemn.html

Looks like its open season:

Freeport moves to seize 3 properties
Court's decision empowers the city to acquire the site for a new marina

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3239024

SWEET!!! The ruling goes full circle.

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

I assume this is some libertarian people who are pissed so they pooled their money. I hope this comes to fruitation.

LMAO! I hope they get it.

I am very concerned by this ruling. It opens the door for cities and states to seize land for private developments on a more frequent basis. I expect to hear alot more of large developers asking cities and states to condemn property so they can build a mall to "revitalize" an area. With the property being condemned then only the lowest of market value will be paid for the property.

I know that the 4th amendment was written to protect against illegal searches but it could be read differently if your home is being stolen by a government.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

When a contractor/investment group shows a city that they can knock down 4 or 5 single dwellings and build a condo that will contain 100 or better tax paying dwellings, personal consideration will go out the window.
Not only taxes will increase but also tap on fees and increased water/sewage and garbage fees.
The city makes a bundle.
I see the single dwellings on the beach disappearing.

I guess we will hear more about it later, but today I caught a short newscast that said Congress is going to try to pass laws to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on this land grabing scheme.
Laws to make it difficult, I guess.