Bye, Bye Miss American Pie

[snizz]

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings,'' said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.

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, on 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.

The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

In dissent, 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. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go.''

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.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to ``just compensation'' for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

[Mr._Shooter]

This one really boils my blood - I've been awaiting this decision, not only as a Connecticut attorney but also an American citizen and a property rights advocate. I have represented numerous property owners who feel they've been cheated or taken advantage of in these condemnation or "public taking" cases. The government says that they'll pay "fair market value" for your property, but who can judge the "fair" value of property that comes attached with a sentimental, historical or psychological component? I once represented an old man who was cajoled by the local municipality into giving up part of his property for purposes of installing and maintaining city sewer and water lines. Unfortunately, the part of the man's property in question was also home to objects of sentimental value - a tree planted by his deceased spouse, his grandchildren's jungle gym, etc. Notwithstanding his tears and heartache, the man was powerless to stop the municipality from exercising its right to bring about the "public good," no matter how hard we protested on his behalf.

There can be no doubt that condemnation is a worthwhile public venture. The resurrection of Harlem and other parts of New York City would not have been possible but for the powers of the municipality to exericse its right to condemn blighted properties and to raze buildings that serve only as crack dens, fire hazards and eyesores. That being said, the taking of property in the name of cut-throat commerce - that is, to foster the installation of big-box, competition-killing stores - is entirely against everything this nation has stood for since the time we declared independence. Property rights are sacrosanct. If anything, our courts should be making it harder for municipalities (or any level of government) to take property in the name of the "public good." I must ask - does it really benefit you when your neighbor is suddenly homeless, with not nearly enough in compensation to purchase a comparable property?

[snizz]

I tell you Mr. Shooter, things are getting friggin scarier than hell.

"nor shall private property be taken for public USE, without just compensation.

Not that it makes it any more right in my mind, I don't like it but I begrudgingly see instances where something like this might be necessary as long as it's the last resort. The population increases and infrastructure has to be built to handle it. Roadways, hospitals, schools, dams, things that fall in the realm of public works. That is the only definition of "public use" that sits right with me. But hell, even at that, people fought to the death to save their property from the railroads in the 1800s. I can go along with the blighted property like the example of Harlem you used. Those buildings were owned by absentee slumlords and the buildings were crumbling death traps and warranted being comdemned. But government seizure of privately owned property under the false pretenses of "condemning" property that doesn't fall under the real meaning of that word and will be turned over to another private owner for their own use and financial gain flys in the face and is a twisted perversion of the Constitution.

Being the clueless schmuck that I am ;D until a few years ago I didn't know New York was one of the worst offenders! Up until last year they could condemn your property but they didn't notify the property owner. After the state condemns your property, the owner only has 30 days to challenge it. They have to go through the motions and hold a hearing on it and the notice of the hearing was put in the legal notices section of the owners local newspaper. How many people ever read those? But the state may have condemned the property a year or more before that hearing, so by the time the owner found out, their 30 days to challenge was long gone. Miraculously ;D in the late 1990s the state legislature tried fixing that by unanimously passing a bill that required the owner be notified by registered mail immediately after the property was declared "condemned" Pataki vetoed it saying it would be too costly! The legislature reintroduced it and unanimously passed it year after year and he kept vetoing it. The friggin jackass finally gave up signed it last year.

And keeping my untarnished record of being a clueless schmuck intact ;D I just found out last year that there's a lot of counties in this state including mine that keep all the proceeds, minus any liens, from a house they repossess for unpaid taxes! I only found out about that one because of a publicized case that made the newspaper. An 82 year old widow owed $16,000 in back taxes. She and her husband bought the house back in the 1940s for around $12,000. The house was paid off decades ago. The present market value of the house was around $300,000. The county auctioned off the house and got every penney of the market value. Instead of recovering the money to satisfy her debt and giving her back the remaining proceeds, under county law they get to keep it ALL! They literally threw an old woman with no family, no money and now nowhere to live out on the street while callously making themselves a tidy profit of $280,000 from "legalized" highway robbery.

I can tell you, right now there's a lot of people looking at "the right to bear arms" in a whole new light.

[Roughneck]

Stis has got to be the stupidest ruling I can remember! 94% oppose it! I was surprised that it was the liberals who oked it! You know that big business is now gonna use this for legalized land grabs. Up to this point, at least we knew it would be used for all! Now it's legal to give land to your biggest doner! But what's this that the states can still write laws overruling the locals?

[Roland]

roughneck said:

Stis has got to be the stupidest ruling I can remember! 94% oppose it! I was surprised that it was the liberals who oked it!

Since when did the government ever care about any majority of public opposition? Special interest, not the ordinary citizens that make up the American majority, rule this country. Government officials, whether they're elected or appointed, once they get in, they do what they like and rarely does majority public interest have any say, hold any sway, or reap any benefits.

You know that big business is now gonna use this for legalized land grabs. Up to this point, at least we knew it would be used for all!

No we didn't. This misuse of "eminent domain," by taking land from one private owner to give to another private owner, has been routinely abused for more than 50 years. I believe the first major instance of this was in the 1950's when an entire section of Detroit was razed to make way for a GM plant. While true it created jobs for a while, since the 1980's, when have you heard about GM hiring workers in whatever's left of their American factories? That set precedent and opened the floodgates for a 2 decades long rush for "urban renewal" projects, most of which had nothing to do with "urban renewal" in any real sense and had the opposite effect. Public outcry slowed down and, in many cases stopped, the objectionable urban renewal practice by the 1980's, and it shifted to more suburban areas for things like shopping malls and sports stadiums. The practice of using the "eminent domain" provision to secure land for private use substantially slowed down by the mid-90's, because the courts' started questioning the constitutionality of it and began more often siding with property owners. Within the last 5 years, the tide has turned again, with courts deciding in favor of land grabs for private use at the expense of property owners and the general public.

Now it's legal to give land to your biggest doner! But what's this that the states can still write laws overruling the locals?

Do you mean states can enact laws that can overrule the federal law, or do you mean local laws?

We're a republic because each state is granted sovereignty. The federal government can only act within the specific powers granted to it in the Constitution and can't infringe on the powers given states to govern themselves. The provision for eminent domain in the 5th amendment and the rights of states was clarified and strengthened in the 14th amendment. There are 7 states that either ban the use of land taking through the use of "eminent domain" completely or have enacted very tight restrictions so that the land cannot be taken from one private owner and given to another private owner. Unless those states change their laws, then the Supreme Court's ruling won't affect them. If that's your question, then yes, states can enact their own laws to protect property owners against this.

As with anything that falls under a state's sovereignty rights, generally, localities can enact their own laws that overrule state or county law only if that law is stronger and sets more limitations than state or county law. If the state or county law is stronger than a locality's law, then the stronger law, at whatever respective government level, always supercedes.

[LS]

Quite an appropo thread title ...but hardly surprising considering the utter disdain and disregard the present administration has for our Constitution...

We can loose our homes at the whim of any private enterprise that provides enough incentive (translation $$$$) to government.

Personal bankruptcy laws have been changed to benefit banks and various other large corporations- taking away the safety net of the working class who may find themselves in dire straits due to a catastrophic illness or accident or the loss of a job.

An energy bill was passed that does absolutely nothing...zip...nada for the American people- but does plenty to line the pockets of greedy corporations.

The 'Patriot' Act was renewed despite it's numerous- and dangerous- infringements on our Constitutional rights.

The federal government has insinuated itself...literally stuck it's nose into the private affairs of private citizens.

And that's only a few of the more recent examples...My intelligence has been steadily insulted by this administration for going on 5 years by a constant and neverending stream of the most outrageous lies and cover-ups I've ever heard and seen in my life...on top of record deficits, record job losses, out of control 'cost of living vs. salary increases,' etc...while Congress has deliberately aided and abetted this travesty by failing miserably at what they're supposed to do- (seeing to it the checks and balances are kept)- by remaining silent and holding no one accountable (including themselves) for their actions...whether it be against the Constitution and/or the American people.

There's now only one President who's approval rating was lower than DuHbya's- and that was Nixon...Nixon too thought he was above it all- but at least he had enough respect for America and the American people to resign when the jig was up...which is far more than can be said for those running (and systematically dismantling) our government and today.

[Roland]

littlesister said:

Personal bankruptcy laws have been changed to benefit banks and various other large corporations- taking away the safety net of the working class who may find themselves in dire straits due to a catastrophic illness or accident or the loss of a job.

And as Katrina has just shown us, this one should prove very interesting, since they also didn't include any provisions for this type of scenario either.