Chipping away at America, one home at a time!

Remove all ads!

Here's an article about yesterdays Supreme Court decision granting greater powers to city and state governments to condemn private property to redevelop the land for more "worthy" use.

Not only is this a blatant bow to the wealthy and powerful, it is one of the more pretentious rulings I've ever seen by this court! Who determines what is "more worthy?" Who determines what is "blight" and what isn't? Wealthy developers, that's who!

Although the last 5-6 years have been trying for democracy in America, this one really hits home - no pun intended. I own property, and I am closing on a city property within the next two weeks. Whose to say a year after I move in, the city decides they want to redevelop my block? What happens to my investment? What constitutes "just compensation" for my property, my little piece of the American dream?

The Supremes got this one wrong - plain and simple!

Court: City can take your home for mall
Ruling lets government seize people's property for private development
Staff and wire reports
06/24/2005WASHINGTON -- Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.

John Flaherty, a lobbyist for Common Cause of Delaware, said the Supreme Court made a "terrible decision."

"The interest of town and government is not necessarily in the public interest," he said. "The right to private property owners was not respected in this case, and I think it should be. [Taking over private property] should be for a public purpose, not a private company's ability to generate tax revenue for a particular municipality."

The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, Monday.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing -- David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

Gregg Wilson, New Castle County attorney, said the court's decision "appears to open some interesting opportunities to benefit the community, when used fairly and judiciously."

New Castle County Councilman Robert S. Weiner, land use chairman for the National Association of Counties, said he will be discussing the court's decision at next month's meeting.

"It was widely anticipated by those who follow issues of eminent domain that the decision would be favorable to local government, and I'm pleased that the nexus between eminent domain and public purpose was again clarified and strengthened," he said. "There are instances when government can abuse that authority, but when used properly, local government can be an important tool to assist communities in revitalizing economically depressed areas."

One example, Weiner said, is a project he championed over the past five years -- the Claymont Renaissance. "Had we not been successful in encouraging the owners of the Brookview Apartments to sell voluntarily, we would have considered the use of eminent domain or condemnation," he said. "The authority in that case wasn't clear because [this] decision was still pending."

The Supreme Court in its decision has acknowledged that redevelopment is "a valid municipal purpose," said Newark city solicitor Roger Akin.

O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "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."

Connecticut resident Susette Kelo and others in the lawsuit pledged to continue their fight. 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.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London."

New London once was a center for 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.

City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

Staff writer Michele Besso and the Associated Press contributed to this story.

 

That sucks. Something is obviously wrong there when the authorities use administrative powers to dabble with civil law relationships. Property movement without a public party (state, local authorities etc) is a matter of private contracts, not administrative decisions.

If they want your land where you have your house, they can still negotiate and make it worth it for you. For example, by paying half again or double the market price.

In Poland, they can take your house if they need the land for highway but it lasts years and they need to provide a place for you to live in. Also, you can appeal and sue them all you want, so it's hardly going to be profitable for them.

But know what our Constitutional Court did? Back in the commie times, some people were giving a large portion of their salaries to their employer (a state owned commie-style quango) in exchange for flats in blocks for workers. The quango remained the legal owner of the block. A couple of years ago, they sold the former quango along with the flats. The new owner decided he didn't care that the people paid for their flats and he wanted them out. The Court upheld it.

Free market, my arse. See where it goes when you let capitalism run rampant. Capitalism is not about protecting rights. It's about getting as many rights as you can until someone puts a stop to it. You don't get any free market with big corporations being allowed to do as they please. You get another version of feudalism.

 

I am still so disgusted by this, that for the first time ever I wrote to my Senators and Congressman.

 

Such a disgrace to the O'Connor surname, as O'Connor is the anglacized version of the Irish name 'O Conchobhair' which translates to 'Champion'. As a further twist of Irony the O'Connor clan were the last to stand up to the Normans land grabbing schemes.

I feel bad for anyone that worked hard to purchase their home/business only to have it demolished for the sake of a brand new shopping mall. Do you think they will be boycotts?

 

Waitasec, she said the decision was wrong. In the past, her clan opposed the Normans stealing land from Irishmen. So what isn't matching?

 

@Cesard,

You may have it backward. O'Connor wrote the dissent. She was against the entire thing. If anything she was Championing the rights of the people.

 

Yes I am completely wrong sorry about that, and my humble apologies to Sandra. I misread and thought it said Sandra bowed to rich corporations.

I will hang my head in shame now.

 

Actually, the outrage should be directed towards the individual states. In effect, the SC decision does absolutely NOTHING. The decision basically states that the federal government does not have authority in a matter such as this, and therefore the power for making such decisions are within the power of the state - exactly where they were before said ruling.

While it may initially appear that the SC said it was OK, what they really said was that each individual state was entitled to make their own rules in such matters. I don't agree with this, as Maryland has the exact same rules (in regards to emminent domain) as Connecticuit does, so it could happen here too.

 

I agree with AtFI. It's a sad choice all around: do you prefer unwieldy and obstrusive federal legislation to "protect" of the homeowner, or do you prefer that these decisions be left in the ever-so-pure hands of state and local officials...

It seems to me, however, that the real estate bubble is an even bigger danger to US homeowners...

[ June 24, 2005, 21:00: Message edited by: Bion ]

 

This is one of the worst decisions to ever come out of the SC (and there have been some really bad ones lately). I was having lunch at a local BBQ joint when the news flashed on one of the TVs, and I actually felt sick when I heard it.

The idea of case law over the Constitution, used by the SC to defend its decision, reminded me of a case in which Jefferson used the same argument: Livingston vs Jefferson. During his presidency, Jefferson and Madison used the military to evict Livingston off of his beachfront land on the Mississippi, which he was developing for his own use. Jefferson cited the "public good" and the right of navigation as his main reasons, but critics have also chraged that politics were involved, since Livingston had aided Aaron Burr.

Jefferson's critics and enemies usually like to paint him as vindictive and petty. Yet during his lifetime, those who knew him well considered him among the most gracious and diplomatic of men. Nevertheless, Jefferson and Madison (then Secertary of State) probably overreacted, prompted by the warnings of federal authorities in the New Orleans Territory regarding Livingston's intentions. Livingston attempted evey legal means available to him to get back his property, but found that Jefferson would not budge on the issue.

After Jefferson retired, Livingston filed a $100,000 lawsuit against Jefferson as he was now a private citizen. To defend his actions, Jefferson compiled his own brilliant, 100 page legal brief, citing studies in case law going all the way back to the Romans.

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that "the British common laws, though not binding on the United States, are entitled to that respect which is due to the opinions of wise men who have maturley studied the subject they decide." Thus Marshall, a Constitutionlist, could not bring himself to overturn hundreds of years of established case law, even though Livingston had a good argument that the land was his private property and the federal government had no right to claim it.

Although Jefferson escaped, Livingston got his revenge in district court in New Orleans some years later against the local authorities, with the court finding that they had indeed trespassed onto Livingston's private property. It is an interesting case that pits the public good, against the rights of the individual. But in the opinion of many, Jefferson was clearly on the wrong side in this instance.

 

My opinion on that is here: http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/34/197.html

 

Public good is one, big business is another. It's not like a parliament is giving sanction to evict people whose property is on the way of an intended highway or aiport or whatever. They are simply clearing the land for big corporations at the expense of the citizens. Down with that.

 

There needs to be someone to hold these committies and the corporations that bribe--er resort to them accountable and ensure that all compensation is truly fair and just. Otherwise, it's the rich hiring lawyers to steal land from the working class.

 

It's really a catch-22. As "privatization" rolls along, local governments look more and more to private monies for development. And while local govts might have more more knowledge of a specific area, they are often way over their heads (in terms of qualifications, brainpower, and funding) to deal with sophisticated corporate interests, who very often shake them down (i.e., if you don't suspend local taxes for us for 10 years, give us a cheap deal on land and public resources, etc, we can always move to this other town that will). I'm afraid that these sorts of maneuvers will only become more prevalent in the future...

 

There has to be limits on what these companies can demand though...