Justices Affirm Property Seizures

[GoodOlBoy]

Justices Affirm Property Seizures By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer
Fri Jun 24, 1:00 AM ET



The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.


Opponents, including property-rights activists and advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents, argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use."


But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.


The court should not "second-guess" local governments, Stevens added, noting that "[p]romoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government."


Stevens's opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, the "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. 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."


D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams, who serves as president of the National League of Cities, issued a statement praising the court for upholding "one of the most powerful tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods."


In addition to its national repercussions, the court's decision removed a possible obstacle to the District's plans to build a baseball stadium along the Anacostia River waterfront and to redevelop the Skyland Shopping Center in Southeast -- a project Williams said could generate 300 jobs and $3.3 million in tax revenue.


A number of property owners in those areas had hoped the court ruling would help them resist the city's exercise of eminent domain. But David A. Fuss, an attorney for several of them, acknowledged that the court's ruling "is going to have a major impact."


The redevelopment program at issue in yesterday's case -- the plan of the Connecticut city of New London to turn 90 acres of waterfront land into office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities near a $300 million research center being built by pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer -- was also expected to generate hundreds of jobs and, city officials say, $680,000 in property tax revenue.


New London, with a population of about 24,000, is reeling from the 1996 closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had employed more than 1,500 people.


But owners of 15 homes on 1.54 acres of the proposed site had refused to go. One of them, Susette Kelo, had extensively remodeled her home and wanted to stay for its view of the water. Another, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life.


The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the city's plan, so the homeowners, represented by lawyers from the libertarian Institute for Justice, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.


According to the institute, the New London plan, which the City Council approved in 2000, is typical of "eminent domain abuse," which has spawned more than 10,000 threatened or filed condemnations involving a transfer of property from one private party to another in 41 states between 1998 and 2002.


Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the institute, said that the only recourse for property owners facing condemnation under eminent domain would be to sue in state court based on the property rights provisions of each state's constitution.


New London City Manager Richard M. Brown said he was "very pleased" by the court's decision. He said the city hopes to restart its redevelopment plan, which has lost money so far, partly because of the litigation.


In the disputed neighborhood, known as Fort Trumbull, most residents sold out and their homes were demolished. The site is now a flat expanse of dusty, rock-strewn soil dotted by the few remaining houses. Signs advertising the development site are withered and torn; builders who once considered projects have moved on, deterred by the controversy.


Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Kennedy's vote was something of a surprise because he had expressed strong sympathy for property-rights claims in past cases. But in a brief concurring opinion he explained that the New London plan showed no sign of improper favoritism toward any one private developer.

O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They wrote that the majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

And in a separate dissent, Thomas sounded a rare note of agreement with liberal groups such as the NAACP, which had sided with the property owners in the case.

He protested that urban renewal has historically resulted in displacement of minorities, the elderly and the poor.

"Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects," he wrote.

The case is Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108.

Staff writer Kirstin Downey contributed to this report.





Are the trying to start a civil war??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

GoodOlBoy

[M.T. Pockets]

I heard this on the news yesterday too, it troubles me a great deal.

[Steverino]

I've been following this story as well because there are alot of local municipalities around my parts that are in litigation concerning this very matter. Very sad,

While I personally believe that the local government has better insight into local community needs than the Feds, I also believe that this ruling that was handed down will allow for the almost certain abuse by local officials seeking tax revenues to offset state funding woes for projects by the federal government after 9/11.:(

[denton]

If the property will generate $680,000 in tax revenue, then the property has to be worth the capital that would generate that much interest. At today's rates, the government should then be willing to fork over $13,600,000 for the property.

Anything less is theft, pure and simple.

[Niteowl]

This is a very sad day in America when big government can come and take away a mans home.I understand the whole good for the economy thing and the tax revenue it will create for the local municipalities. But where will it all end? People won't buy property anywhere there is a possibility of it being rezoned and the locals coming in and taking your land because some big rich land grabber development company says we can pay you this much in taxes. I wonder if those "so called"supreme court justices would sit idily by and let their homes be taken away,I'm thinking NOT! Maybe its just me but I see Civil Strife in the not to distant future. Its time to start prayin that a few of them old a$$ codgers take the dirt nap. Just my 2 cents.

[Classicvette63]

They did that less than 2 miles from my house. A guy owned a house right across the street from the township building no less. He apllied for a permit for a shed. They denied it because the back of his property was a "wetland" and no building was allowed. A couple years later a developer wanted to build a mall and needed this guys 1 acre. He didn't want to sell, so the township condemed his house and he was out. :mad: It was a nice house, not some dump either. He couldn't build a shed, but they could build a mall.:confused: Someone should have woke up with a horse's head in their bed over that.

[M.T. Pockets]

At first this troubled me, now it's really starting to frost me. The Justices voting in dissent are often labeled "Conservative" Justices. Liberals like to roll up their sleeves and beat their chests that they're for the little guy and they'll keep those big corporations in check. They say how the conservatives are just in the pocket of big corporations and big money. It looks to me that the liberals are bought & paid for on this one. So much for liberal judges protecting the rights of the individual and looking our for the little guy. I'd like to hear how the liberals are going to defend this one.

Justice Stevens' interpretation of the Constitution is just plain scary.

[fabsroman]

Personally, I have mixed feelings about this case. If you knew the areas that Mayor Williams is referring to in DC, you would understand my reason for having mixed feelings. There are portions of DC that are horrible. By horrible, I mean terrible housing, drug traffficking, and homicides left and right. Problem is, if you fix up that area, the rif raff have to go somewhere else, no doubt about that. Then again, there is the argument that if the economy is stimulated in this way, the riff raff will have the opportunity to work as honest citizens, yeah right. My question is where are the riff raff going to go? Beforehand, I knew to avoid Southeast DC because I could end up dead, now what part of DC do I need to avoid?

Regarding the dissent in an opinion, that is the non-majority's opinion. The majority write the intial opinion of the Court and the minority, the dissenters, get to write their own opinion why the majority is wrong. Being a dissenter has nothing to do with whether the judges are liberal or conservative, merely has to do with their position on the matter. So, the dissenters in this case could be all liberal, all conservative, or a mix of both, but they just do not like the ruling of the Court. Something tells me that this decision might not stand too long because it was a 5 to 4 decision.

[8X56MS]

More and more, we are a Country divided. The SCOTUS split was right down ideological lines. Predictable. Just as predictable as the action on any bill presented in the Congress.
In this case, we see the fullfilment of Socialism, ie, if the greater good is for the 'people', then that trumps individual rights. Too bad that here, like in Socialist countries, the 'people' hardly ever see the benefit, but their 'controllers' do.

[Virginiashadow]

Property seizures happen all over the country, and the government generally pays the land owners nothing close to what they would fetch on an open market. It is very sad when the government can do this type of thing.

vashadow

[PJgunner]

We have a bit more protection through the Arizona Constitution, but Tucson has been trying to take over one of out historic barrios for some time. This SCOTUS ruling just may give them the edge they've been looking for. :mad: One resident of that barrio was quoted in the local paper, "Let "em come. I've got my shotgun."
I know what my house is worth and it's paid for. They want it, I either full value or like the woman with the shotgun, bring 'em on.
I have a better idea. Get a rope.
Paul B.

[denton]

There was an incident in Utah a few years ago, where the city of Orem condemned a person's property. The property owner knew that the land could easily and profitably be rezoned commercial, and demanded the price of the property be based on commercial value. The city swore up and down that they would never rezone it, and paid only the residential price. As soon as they had it, they rezoned it, and sold it to a commercial developer at a tidy profit.

There was another incident here in Ogden, where the city wanted to condemn property for commercial development. There was a real stink about it, because it strikes so many people as fundamentally unfair.

Partly because of abuse like that, we now have a state law that strictly limits the use of eminent domain.

[Cal Sibley]

I was raised in Washington, DC. My mother owned 4 rooming houses in one block. The government declared Emminent Domain, seized all the properties, then immediately condemned the properties and ended up paying the owners mere pennies. That's how they acquired the huge space they wanted for the new Government Accounting Office (GAO). The owners lost their shirts. My mother was suddenly poor. I never forgave the US Government for that one. Don't ever think they act in your best interest. They don't. You'll notice I no longer live there. That's why. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

[fabsroman]

Governments are tough, but if you can raise a big enough stink about something, you might actually be able to do something about it. Sad thing is that money talks and the rest walks. It sucks to be on the short end of the stick, but that will continue to happen until the people finally have enough of this crap.

[multibeard]

Fabrosman

Looks like two more places you need to avoid is the Capitol and the Supreme Court building.

When I go thru Va to my nephews in Newport News I have figured out a way to totally avoid DC. I was there twice and do not plan on ever getting near there again.

It looks to me that the voters of each state need to pursue a state constitutional amendment to put controls on this eminent domain Bull.

What gets me here in Michigan is that when some one does build an industrial plant they give them a multiyear tax abatement so they don't pay taxes on the property anyhow.

[fabsroman]

Multibeard,

I am licensed to practice law in Washington, DC, but I haven't applied to be admitted to practice before the Supreme Court because I believe an attorney needs to have at least 10 years of experience to be admitted. I live so close to DC that it is hard to avoid it. In fact, I can be down on the mall in about 40 minutes on the metro and can be inside the Washington, DC border within 20 minutes. Granted, I do not enjoy going down there much and would prefer to head north, but I still have to go down there every once in a while.

States and the District of Columbia try to attract business to them because it brings in money in several ways. First off, it creates employment, which results in additional income tax. It also results in additional sales tax collected because the people earning the money will spend a good portion of it. It also causes increased home sales/construction if the employment market is tight because people will move in to work at the new factory/company if there isn't a lot of labor available. With new homes comes additional property taxes.

How do you think Washington, DC got the expos to move here and become the Nationals? They made them a ton of promises. How do you think Baltimore, Maryland got the Browns to move here and become the Ravens? They made them a ton of promises and built them a new stadium on taxpayers money. Of course, I am not a big Baltimore fan and I despise the Orioles because of Peter Angelos, yet my tax dollars went into building stadiums, and costly stadiums at that, for both the Ravens and the Orioles. I am at the point where I do not care to follow pro sports too much, so why do I have to pay for their stadiums.

Goverments aren't perfect, but at least ours tries very hard to be. Things change over time, and this opinion might change over time too. Look at all the change that occurred over the Terri Schiavo case. Let's just wait until the first time this new court case is used to take somebody's property at a reduced value and sell it to a corporation and an extremely high price. There will probably be a huge outcry.

Then again, it might be best for these hold out people to take the money offered by the corporation initially and be done with the whole thing. There was a case by me where everybody on a corner sold their homes to a landlord so he could build a shopping center. However, one guy with road access held out. His backyard view became that of a shopping center and all around his house was asphalt. When he wanted to sell, nobody wanted to buy the place.

Sometimes people hold out just because they are stubborn. Other times they have a good reason to do so. It is just tough to deal with.

My biggest issue here is that where do all the people go that get displaced out of these ghettos when things get revitalized? We are merely shifting these places from one place to another. The bigger issue is dealing with the people that need low income housing, but that isn't an easy issue.

[rubicon]

Its not just the ghettos they take. I know of one county which was begging for a hydro electric power plant. the dam would have been built on land owned by the power company and nobody would have to be displaced but they were denied permits. Instead, an alternate site in the next county was chosen. It was all farm land and all the farmers lost their land. My father also once served on a jury which had to decide values of farm homes which was taken by the state of WV to build Canaan Valley State Park.

[Skinny Shooter]

This is an ugly precedent that will embolden even the smallest of communities to seize property in the name of "public use".

Another hit to property owners is the threat of confiscatory taxes. I really don't own my property and never will until these actions are reversed.

This is another step towards the replacement of our governmental members by the citizens of this country. If only folks would galvanize together but that'll never happen...

Another topic is term limits for federal judges and every other elected official while we're at it.
FJ's aren't accountable to anyone :confused:

rant off

[fabsroman]

Federal Judges can be impeached by Congress, just like the President can be. However, it very rarely happens with judges.

Here is a pretty good thread about it. However (i.e., disclaimer), I only read the first half.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=69

[Skinny Shooter]

Originally posted by fabsroman
Federal Judges can be impeached by Congress, just like the President can be. However, it very rarely happens with judges.



Thanks Fabs. And that's the reason they all (Congress included) need term limits. We know how fast Congress can act when they are needed.
If they really were on top of things the 9th Circuit Court might be lookin' a bit different these days...

Fabs, this isn't a hit to you personally cause your not included in this next part and are an all-round good guy. :) We need less professional people and more regular joes to end up in office. Like Mr Smith... Link (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004CJKI/202-2426841-9646250)

Allen

[fabsroman]

Skinny,

I agree completely. Problem is that there aren't many ordinary Joe's that know what is going on, much less many with the clout to make it into office. I believe that the only reason that Congress isn't doing much about certain things is because the average Joe isn't writing in to his/her representative. Heck, I don't think the average professional is writing in either. Government gets away with a lot of stuff because the average person is way too busy to care about what is happening with the guy next door's house. So, they let laws pass. However, later on it comes back to bite them. That is what is really sad. Barely anybody probably cares that somebody is losing their house and only being paid a pittance. In fact, we should start a pole to see how many people wrote their Representative about this situation.

Have you? I know I haven't.

[Skinny Shooter]

Originally posted by fabsroman
Skinny,
In fact, we should start a pole to see how many people wrote their Representative about this situation.
Have you? I know I haven't. I have.

[fabsroman]

Good for you Skinny. I wish I had your motivation today. Then again, maybe I do because I have gotten a lot done, just haven't been able to read the opinion and e-mail my representative.

[skeeter@ccia.com]

Why can California get away with doing anything they want?..Why are they the first to pass these stipid laws?...Why doesn't the federal gov step in and remind them they are a part of this free nation....free for this citizens?.....Is America the land of the Free?...I think we have too many wolves in sheep clothes in offices anymore...you know the ones that want to distroy this nation....they might not be able to win the war but they are sure winning the battle and we as citizens are letting them..and doing nothing but grumping to each other about what they did and not paying attention to what they have in store for us tomorrow...keep us in a state of confussion.....isn't this a way to win over the people?.....
When they put in a new pc of the pa turnpike here, they had a Dr change the route ( that made a crook in the road)..because he just bought his property and built a huge house....but a few miles up the road they made a truck repair take or leave what they wanted to pay for his property.....nothing for the buss he had there...he held out....they never did get it settled in the courts before he passed....they took his land..mowed down the garage and never even used the property....it is level land there now..his family is out the $$..still in courts.....
on another note worse than that....a well known tire shop was taken over by a bank so they could build there....a bigger bank..so he had to move...take it or leave it....they built a 4 story bank there...it is closed now....collecting dust....his shop is out of the back of his truck now.....great buss. by the way....makes out good...but the eye sore is still there on the hill for all to see....why don't they make it a vote by the locals for this?..Then again our Reps never hear from the "people" and only report what they hear from a sellect few that want to get off the duff and contact them.....kind a like when we do the anti hun/hunt things...let our feeling known to them...is the way to start...then we can go from there.....the squeeky wheel gets the grease..

[Critch]

Well, I worte my congress criters, both state and federal and my govenor. Interestinlgy, (I'm sure it wasn't due to me), Governor Blunt is getting ready to propose a constitutional amendment to prevent private entities froom using eminent domain, or governments from using in the name of private entities.

Wonder how this will go.

[fabsroman]

Laws get passed because people lobby their representatives. Sad thing is that big business can afford to have lobbyists and the poor shmuck cannot.

[Slim-Zippy]

Chief Justice Souter has just had a wealthy conservative seek information of his local city manager to condemn his home for the use of a Hotel which will be called the Lost Liberty Hotel.

Not a joke, It is on the Drudge Report.

Personnaly I hope they take his home and shove it .....

[fabsroman]

That is Justice for you. I am glad to see that there are some people out there with money and morals. I am also glad to see that the Justices are getting what they deserve.

This almost makes my day.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by Slim-Zippy
Chief Justice Souter has just had a wealthy conservative seek information of his local city manager to condemn his home for the use of a Hotel which will be called the Lost Liberty Hotel.

Not a joke, It is on the Drudge Report.

Personnaly I hope they take his home and shove it ..... http://www.romulus2.com/forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif

[denton]

I just don't understand this schizophrenic court.

In the marijuana case, they ruled that the federal government can regulate anything they want to regulate, whether it ever traveled in interstate commerce or not, under the interstate commerce clause. They basically trashed the concept of the federal government's powers being few and enumerated.

In the KELO case, they ruled that the federal government couldn't intervene if a state or local government wanted to seize private property on behalf of another private party. They basically said that they would not intervene in what they considered a local issue...just the opposite philosophy of the marijuana case.

Now we are in a position where a federal branch of government has done something evil, and the other two branches of federal government are practically powerless to stop it, because the constitution gives them no power to legislate in that area.

Bizarre.

I hope they do make a serious run at seizing Souter's home.

Fortunately, we have a state law here in Utah strictly limiting the uses of eminent domain.