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. It was a nice house, not some dump either. He couldn't build a shed, but they could build a mall. 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. 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.