Eminent Domain: The Great American Ripoff

[jeo4]

High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership 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 have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices 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," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

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, Connecticut, 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.

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.

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.

Source: CNN.com

[BubbaStrangelove]

That's really fucked up. I'm simply just stunned.

Usually, I feel that I'm able to see at least some good coming from both sides of something like this -- but in this case I can't see anything but pure evil at work.

I have to wait for some proponets of this to comment before I can even wrap my head around why this could be a good thing. To me it just seems like The Empire is beginning to form, or maybe some of the prophecies of Fight Club are coming true. Either way, this seems very bleek for freedom.

[Thrizzle]

Eminent Domain was bullshit even before this ruling. Now its much much worse.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Those people in New London are not wealthy people:

Median household income: $33,809 (year 2000)
Median house value: $107,900 (year 2000)



What irks me is they are clearing out these people who probably have small homes on single or half lots to make room for buisiness, but these big buisiness owners and proabably those justices -- Those people probably live in large houses on land that takes up acres -- They probably wouldn't notice an office complex in their side yard.

It's really sick. The people with lots of property are deciding to take away those with little property so that they can have more property

Poor stay poor while the rich get rich. That's how it goes. Everybody knows.

[jeo4]

So much for the American dream...politicians are killing it in the name of money.

[BubbaStrangelove]

And now you do what they told ya

Dun-na Dun-na





Sorry, you gave me a musical flashback.....

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Poor stay poor while the rich get rich. That's how it goes. Everybody knows.

Exactly. New London is rather poor considering it's only a medium-sized city here in CT. The vast majority of towns of under 100,000 people in this state are in good shape.

[JohnTheHenchman]

God damn those conservative justices for um....doing the right thing, unfortunately they did not have one more who agreed with them.

[jeo4]

Please, for the love of all that is good and decent, explain to me how this is the right thing, John. I can't possibly begin to see how.

[Thrizzle]

He meant that the conservative judges voted against this.

[jeo4]

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent.

...She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Are all these justices conservative??

[JohnTheHenchman]

Yeah, jeo, they're all conservative. Well O'Connor is more of a moderate and granted they're not the only justices appointed by republicans.

Four of the five of the majority are liberals, with one moderate there as well.

What I'm trying to point out is that it's interesting that the people you would expect to support such blatant capitalism, looked at the laws differently and simply thought it was the wrong thing.

I'm not sure entirely, I haven't read the majority and dissenting opinions yet, but if anything this is a testament to how the courts really are not activist in nature.

[jeo4]

Holy shit...attack of the east coast liberals.

[Thrizzle]

Jeo you forgot to add 'elite'!

[BubbaStrangelove]

Actually, it makes more sense hearing they were conservative, because I was wondering about them being so big on personal property and ownership, while the liberals are more about working for communities as whole. So, I thought for a second about it, but moved on because whomever voted for it - this sucks, no thought of labels. I don't care if their name was Bubba Strangelove, it's something I don't agree with.

[JohnTheHenchman]

You're absolutely right, Bubba.

[outsyder]

Living this one down will be hard for the more left-leaning audience.

Regardless, it is still a terrible resolve that will probably have some serious implications in the future.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by outsyder
Living this one down will be hard for the more left-leaning audience.

Well, I'm sure if Christianity can survive The Crusades, Germany can survive WW2, and Michael Jackson can survive this past decade --- a bad vote in the supreme court won't exactly be a downfall for a bunch of quick spending dope heads.

[Lynn7]

I know that the way politics work the regualar person will just not get a fair shake. I remember a case where Donald Trump was trying to get an old woman booted from her house cause it was standing in the way of some huge project of his. He offered her a lot of money (I guess her house wwas worth more to her than money) and she refused so he was trying to get it taken by eminent domain. I dont' know how the case turned out but it just seemed so creepy to me. Trump- multi millionaire Little old lady-happy living in her home.

The point in the article is agood one- it's not just about moving- it may be about children having to change schools, lose friends, hardships for family etc.

[free]

Why is everyone so pissed off? The more Wal-Marts with illegal immigrants we can get, the better!

What's next? Quartering the troops during war?

This decision make me question the sanity of buying property. Why buy it if the government can take it any time they want?

[jeo4]

Originally posted by free
Why is everyone so pissed off? The more Wal-Marts with illegal immigrants we can get, the better!

What's next? Quartering the troops during war?

This decision make me question the sanity of buying property. Why buy it if the government can take it any time they want?

Exactly. It borders on socialism. Those in control take from those who own the property in favor of doing what's best "for the common good".