Property can be taken for development-Supreme Court

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Property can be taken for development-Supreme Court
Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:02 AM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS

Top News
Israel targets Islamic Jihad before talks
Anti-Syrian politician assassinated in Beirut
Bush to discuss rights, trade with Vietnam's Khai
MORE


By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person's home for a development project aimed at revitalizing a depressed local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.

Under the U.S. Constitution, governments can take private property through their so-called eminent domain powers in exchange for just compensation, but only when it is for public use.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority that the city's proposed disposition of the property at issue qualified as a "public use" under the Constitution.

He said the city's determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation was entitled to deference.

The decision affecting individual property rights could have broad impact. The issue has arisen across the nation as cities have sought new ways to promote growth and create jobs in depressed areas.

The Supreme Court's last major ruling on using eminent domain for private development was in 1954, when it upheld the taking of property to eliminate slums or blight after finding that such condemnations constituted a public use.

The decision was a victory for New London, which argued that because the development will create jobs, increase tax revenues and help the local economy, it satisfied the Constitution's public-use requirement.

The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property.

Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic.

He said promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted government function.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

What happened tothe constitution? Dosent it count anymore? Another horrible decision by these folks.

[Proletariat]

You know when I read the headline, my reaction was, "Oh great, another thing for liberals to bash Republicans over the head with." Then I read the article and find that it's the three liberals and two traitors who formed the majority.

I am flabbergasted. This should have been a 9-0 decision against.

Not surprising, however, when you read the majority opinion, the logic. It basically boils down to, "Government knows best." A classic American left-liberal position.

[Proletariat]

This is really an outrage, the more I think about it. I can't wait to read O'Conner's dissent. Apparently it's scathing.

Are those 5 idiots so dense as to not see what the implications of such a decision are? Why did they bother to take an oath to uphold the constitution when they took office?

Bush needs to appoint another Scalia-like justice to the bench, regardless of how much Democrats in the senate will bitch and moan about it. Otherwise, we'll continue to see more horrible decisions like this one.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

The Supreme court should be charged with treason and the whole damned lot of them shot.
And that's my final answer.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Oh, and Gawain, I thought you knew. The Supreme Court is God in America! They're higher then the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the god-damned people of America, that Patriot Missile over there, the US Military, The State of Nebraska, and the Christian Churches! Bloody leftist/traitorous pigs that they are.

[doc_bean]

Ah we have similar laws, you're all screwed, seriously.

I watched C-span yesterday (yes, bored) where a Representative (yes, a democrat) tried to argue against a constitutional amendment (the flag burning) on the grounds that it would go against the Supreme Court, now i'm not an American, but even I felt like shouting 'That's the whole point, Congress is the highest political actor !'

It also seems that almost all debated decisions are taken 5-4, would it be unreasonable to ask a 6-3 majority before a verdict becomes valid ? Can't there be a 'the Supreme Court is undecided' verdict that would require additional regulation by Congress ?

[Ser Clegane]

The Supreme court should be charged with treason and the whole damned lot of them shot.
And that's my final answer.

I have the feeling that "they should all get shot" is your default solution for pretty much every problem (or what you consider to be a problem).

[xemitg]

This is an interesting ruling and I personally think we don't know the rational behind it from that sparse article. The article wasn't very detailed. Perhaps the homes being seized are slums. However, I don't like this ruling one bit.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I have the feeling that "they should all get shot" is your default solution for pretty much every problem (or what you consider to be a problem).

Pretty much, Clegane, pretty much. Though I do advocate beheading and public disemboweling for certain things

[Tribesman]

The Supreme court should be charged with treason and the whole damned lot of them shot.
So you want to shoot the Judiciary Capo , isn't that treason

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I never said that I personally wanted to do it, merely that in the situation described above that they are guilty of Treason to the United States Constitution and therefore should be shot alongside all traitors. That's all. God I hope the CIA doesn't see this. On a more serious note, maybe not shoot them, but sure as hell get rid of the treasonous bastards.

[discovery1]

I am not at all happy about this. Yet more trampling of indivdual rights.

I watched C-span yesterday (yes, bored) where a Representative (yes, a democrat) tried to argue against a constitutional amendment (the flag burning) on the grounds that it would go against the Supreme Court, now i'm not an American, but even I felt like shouting 'That's the whole point, Congress is the highest political actor !'

You are kidding right?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What part of the 5th amendment dont they understand?

Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons

Amendment Text | Annotations

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems now that taking your private property and giving it to another private individual can be seen as for public use if they clain it WILL increase tax revenues. If this is so then all churches are in trouble since they pay no property tax the government could simply take their property and put up a mall. This is really stretching the meaning of public use.

[Goofball]

This appears to be a very bad decision. What is unclear to me is, who will own this new development project? If it is a private company or individual, then this decision seems to be a step back towards the robber-baron era, where the big money boys could pretty much take away whatever they want from little people with impunity.

Having said that, I have no problem with governments excercising the right of eminent domain to build things such as highways, power plants or prisons. But when governments start confiscating poor peoples' homes to give them to big companies, we are entering dark times indeed.

One thing I would point out: Those of you (the usual suspects) who are screaming about liberalism being to blame for this are way off base. If anything, government action that favors big business (assuming, again, that a private company(ies) will be the beneficial owners of this development) at the expense of the little guy is a more common Republican/Capitalist theme. So lighten up on the rhetoric a bit.

[doc_bean]

You are kidding right?

I'll assume you're not making fun of me and asking about what happened in the House. Yes, it happened, the man was worried about going against the Supreme Court (he did have other, more valid points). The (kinda) funny thing was that he was black (he brought the black thing up, something about the civil rights movement and Brown vs The Board of Education) and as someone correctly pointed out, an amendment had been passed before (partly) in order to revoke a decision of the Supreme Court, namely the 13th. I don't think he would have opposed that.

A bit besides the point, I find the proposed amendment rather silly

[Tribesman]

On a more serious note, maybe not shoot them, but sure as hell get rid of the treasonous bastards.
So you want to get rid of some of your government ? Thats still treason Capo

[doc_bean]

What part of the 5th amendment dont they understand?

Actually this isn't that bad. Contrary to common sense and the 5th amendment the US can start trials against property, and not against the people owning it, denying any proper defense.

Stories about abuse have floated around here before so I'm sure you know about it.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

On a more serious note, maybe not shoot them, but sure as hell get rid of the treasonous bastards.
So you want to get rid of some of your government ? Thats still treason Capo

Then wanting to get rid of bush via impeachment is treason Tribesman

[ICantSpellDawg]

This appears to be a very bad decision. What is unclear to me is, who will own this new development project? If it is a private company or individual, then this decision seems to be a step back towards the robber-baron era, where the big money boys could pretty much take away whatever they want from little people with impunity.

Having said that, I have no problem with governments excercising the right of eminent domain to build things such as highways, power plants or prisons. But when governments start confiscating poor peoples' homes to give them to big companies, we are entering dark times indeed.

One thing I would point out: Those of you (the usual suspects) who are screaming about liberalism being to blame for this are way off base. If anything, government action that favors big business (assuming, again, that a private company(ies) will be the beneficial owners of this development) at the expense of the little guy is a more common Republican/Capitalist theme. So lighten up on the rhetoric a bit.

democrats are capitalists too
and, imo, are the worst kind

and it was the more "liberal" judges who voted in favor of this

this is luny - why the hell can a group of 5 people that ive never voted for allow me to be ejected from my home, have it demolished and replaced with a hotel? why cant this go through congress?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Then wanting to get rid of bush via impeachment is treason Tribesman

tribesman is from ireland
wanting to rid us of bush is simply "not going to happen"
not "treason"

[Red Harvest]

I'm not too impressed by what I see of the ruling. This court is rather "erratic" in its rulings. Taking property out of the hands of one private landowner and putting it in the hands of another through force of local govt. is highly suspect. The greatest tyrannies I've witnessed by govt tend to happen on a local level, and this only expands their power of abuse. (I actually prefer state and federal govt in such matters over local, as they get more scrutiny from more parties and are therefore are less subject to getting away with abuse.)

I have supported local govt efforts to go after absentee landlords that let their property run down, and fail to pay taxes or fines for years or decades. This intentional neglect destroys older neighborhoods and provides focal points for crime. The cities are reluctant to do it though, so the eyesores are often around for far too long. Often the titles are rather messy too. I'm for granting some powers in that area, but with some clear boundaries.

[Xiahou]

Pretty unbelievable stuff. How on earth can you claim that taking property and giving it to a private bussiness is public use?

I wouldn't worry about a constitutional ammendmen against flag desecration- the Supreme Court can just tell us that what the ammendment really does is permit it.

[Don Corleone]

To those of you in the audience that are always getting on judidical conservatives (limited court, as opposed to political conservatives) are delusional and paranoid, I have to ask what you think about this? Aurelian? This a good thing? Has the Supreme Court abandoned ship on the Constitution and now just making up its own rules as it goes and saying "The Constitution agrees with our ruling because we say it does" ?

[Red Harvest]

To those of you in the audience that are always getting on judidical conservatives (limited court, as opposed to political conservatives) are delusional and paranoid, I have to ask what you think about this? Aurelian? This a good thing? Has the Supreme Court abandoned ship on the Constitution and now just making up its own rules as it goes and saying "The Constitution agrees with our ruling because we say it does" ?

I've always thought that both extremes were bad. Of course I also firmly believe in blocking the more extreme appointments by either party. There is not much room for moderates in either party's apparatus. Much of this is the result of the primary system, by design it plays to the ends, and away from the middle. The political pendulum is slow, but amusing to watch. When I am being called a crazy conservative I figure things have shifted too far to the left. When I am being called liberal, I'm certain things have swung to the right. When folks can't think of an appropriate name to call me...then it is just right. I'll stick with independent and vote my conscience.

[JAG]

Pretty unbelievable stuff. How on earth can you claim that taking property and giving it to a private bussiness is public use?

Agreed, that is never in the public use.

Also I think this highlights the biggest weakness in the US system - even weaker than the sheer weight of money thrown about in nominations and elections - the huge power the unelected - democratically that is - Supreme Court judges have, based on a constitution which is as old as it is vague - well by vague I mean able to be manipulated by the SC.

[Don Corleone]

This has nothing to do with being politically liberal or conservative. The Supreme Court granting itself the right to reinterpet the Constitution to say any it wants, and grant local governments the right to sieze any property they desire is aristocracy. When will America wake up and realize we have in an oligarchy, that we have 9 dictators that make up the law as the go.

If they can claim that creating tax revenue is a public good, in and of itself, they can make any argument any time they want, for any reason they want. A written code means nothing if one week you say statement A means this, and the following week, you say statatement A means that.

Well, guys, 216 years. Nice run while it lasted. US Consitituion, RIP. Lawyers and judges, I bow before your almighty and unlimited power. I shamelessly grovel before you Please, don't sieze my house. I'll do my best to keep your tax revenues up.

To all my non-legally employed friends, realize this... the days of individual rights are over. If you know any lawyers, start sucking up to them. Because from this day forward, they are the only hope you have for being able to maintain your life or your property. Everything else is on the table, for them to take as they see fit.

Time for me to begin investegating life in a country that believes in a rule of law, not interpretation of law.

[PanzerJaeger]

The Supreme Court has a history of bad decisions regarding any number of decisions. Thankfully those bad decisions are usually overturned by the next generation of judges.

[doc_bean]

Supreme Court judges have, based on a constitution which is as old as it is vague - well by vague I mean able to be manipulated by the SC.

Their power is not based on the constitution as much as it is based on Marbury vs Madison . That's part of the problem.

[Ser Clegane]

I can only say that, no matter whether one personally agrees with decisions of a Supreme Court or not, it is quite a bad sign if a significant part of a country's population has the feeling that a Supreme Court is abusing its power and/pr is doing a bad job.

Ideally the highest court of a country should be widely accepted and considered to be a kind of moral and ubiased conscience of the country.
If that is not the case and people start to have the feeling that the court has an agenda then something is going wrong... (and I do not think that the situation can be easily remedied by simply replacing trhe judges and just overturning a lot of rulings)

[Tribesman]

Pretty unbelievable stuff. How on earth can you claim that taking property and giving it to a private bussiness is public use?
Sadly it is quite common , they normally argue that the development will be of more benefit to the local public than the existing land users are.
A common one thet is used over here is to buy up more land than is needed under compulsory purchase , and pay only agricultural prices , then sell the excess land for development prices , or for the people in government to get their friends to buy up as much land as they can in areas that are going to be affected by future projects then re-zone their friends land as development areas so they not only make a killing on the land deal they get development grants aswell .
Governments eh. ? **** 'em .