Supreme Court will take your land.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Thu Jun 23,10:38 AM ET

 

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

ADVERTISEMENT

 

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 now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order 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, Conn., 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.

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...zing_property_2

 

 

 

 

 

Booooooy, what a crock of shit. If you OWN property, you OWN it. What the fuck? Do they even get paid for the land?

[devo 0]

Yes, let's destroy people's family homes to make room for souless office complexes that'll add nothing to the community. Unless the landowners get paid the value of their land, this judgement is completely undefendable.

 

Scary thing is, I can imagine this happening around here. Retail's been developing up and down a particular parkway for years and there are still a few people that have refused to sell their houses on there.

[Ced 0]

It'll be awesome when the day comes where I finally buy my first house only to get kicked out a month or so later and given back less compensation than what I already paid so the city can have another Krispy Kreme.

[The Robfather 0]

So much for individual property rights.

 

This is one of the worst rulings ever by the SC.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Is it a good decision? Not really. Those of you who think that just because you own a home that you always have the right to do whatever you want with it need to go look up "homeowners association" in your favorite dictionary, search engine, whatever.

[Jingus 0]

Pretty much EVERYONE is shitting all over the SC for this one. I can't believe they made such a dumbass ruling.

[Special K 0]

Ridiculously stupid ruling.

 

The scariest part is that I'm sure 'fair market value' errs heavily on the side of cheap. Anyone who's looked at a blue book can tell you that.

[Guest Vitamin X]

What the fuck, is this a democracy anymore?

[Carnival 0]

Another freedom bites the dust.

[Jingus 0]

Oddly enough, this one came from the liberal half of the court; the conservative justices were the dissenters. About the opposite of what you'd expect. Still, no matter who made the call, it's staggeringly bad.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Yea, I was almost certain the CT residents would win this case and wasn't expecting a 5-4 decision on it at all. I'm not necessarily surprised the liberal justices voted on it as they tend to support broader application of government powers (although not always). This is a terrible ruling that is a HUGE dent for property rights in the U.S. I'm not fearing an imminent government takeover of all the land people own but as far as I'm concerned when people buy property it's theirs and the city has no right to take it from them.

 

Anyone remember Poletown in Detroit that got demolished to build a Cadillac plant several decades ago? The factory owners said that it would create over 6,000 jobs when in reality it created only 2,000 and didn't substantially help Detroit's economy. Just sickening in my view. Sometimes I don't know how these judges sleep at night.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

It's just another excuse for Corporations Uber Alles. It sucks. Least when they muscled people out of some of the neighborhoods around here while expanding the local airport, folks got PAID! I seriously doubt that people won't get a good chuck of change in the futrure. But some folks are just plain stubborn and won't move. I can just see now, people chaining themselves to their houses while big wrecking equipment bearing down. Somebody should make a movie.

[Hawkius Maximus 0]

I actually did a report for college on Kelo & the legal battle for the residents.

 

Dear god this sucks.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Thank God we have those Liberal Justices to protect our freedoms from those nasty conservatives!!!!

 

 

ohh...wait...

 

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords..*cough*

 

Every time I think things can't get any stupider, they do.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Why are the liberals and corporations friends now?

 

I'm so confused.

[The Robfather 0]

Ordinary homeowners get burned in favor of greedy developers.

 

Yes, that spin that the libs are for the little guy is a crock. This ruling gives big business more power, all in the name of increasing tax revenues of big government.

[Jingus 0]

Texas has already started legislation for an amendment to limit the powers from the decision. Yes, TEXAS, the most conservative state in the union. Weird how the Dems and Reps have almost completely switched sides on their view of government's ability to control private citizens.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

But...they haven't.

[Jingus 0]

What do you mean? Historically, the conservative Republicans have generally been in favor of letting big corporations screw over anyone they pleased; this is an about-face for them. Plus don't forget all the various Homeland Security legislation that they pushed through which brought up serious invasion-of-privacy worries. But now the Republicans are more concerned with protecting people's rights and liberties, while the formerly ACLU-loving hippies are the ones who seem to not give a shit if the little guy gets fucked over in the name of big business.

[The Robfather 0]

Freestar Media: "Lost Liberty Hotel" proposed on Justice Souter's land

 

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media

For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

 

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

 

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

 

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

 

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

 

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

 

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

 

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

 

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

[Jingus 0]

Now THAT's a good use of the new law.

 

The government sure has been interested in interfering with our various civil rights recently.

 

-The war on gay marriage

-This new eminent domain ruling

-Various human rights abuses at various "gulags", some involving inmates who were forced into uncomfortable positions for hours

-Pollution laws being neutered until our atmosphere fills with smog

 

So you could almost say that they take our love, take our land, take us where we cannot stand, and they even took the skies from me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

...sorry, I HAD to say it.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

What do you mean?  Historically, the conservative Republicans have generally been in favor of letting big corporations screw over anyone they pleased; this is an about-face for them.  Plus don't forget all the various Homeland Security legislation that they pushed through which brought up serious invasion-of-privacy worries.  But now the Republicans are more concerned with protecting people's rights and liberties, while the formerly ACLU-loving hippies are the ones who seem to not give a shit if the little guy gets fucked over in the name of big business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While that's largely true, this was a court decision. I dunno, I see the judges on the supreme court as dots on a much broader plane of conservative/liberal than party-line Republicans or Democrats. I wouldn't characterize one court ruling as a significant sea change elsewhere.

So you could almost say that they take our love, take our land, take us where we cannot stand, and they even took the skies from me!

BOOOOOOOOOO!

...::watches "Out of Gas"::

[Ravenbomb 0]

If I remember the horrendously tiny amount of research into the constitution I did for a project I did in school 6 years ago correctly, isn't there something in the bill of rights that says they CAN'T do this?

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Actually the fifth amendment ensures that they *can* take property for public use, provided that they give just compensation.

 

Just compensation has come to mean a "fair market value." Now what gets interpreted as FMV by the state can be much different than that of the owner.

 

To play devil's advocate here to the previous posts, the argument being made by local governments is that they do not have sufficient funds being obtained from local taxes. The decreasing amount of available land for commercial use has a direct effect on the amount of tax revenues that can be received. Therefore, it is to the benefit of a local community to seize residential property and convert it to a commercial use, which in general has a higher tax burden.

 

I'm not saying I necessarily support this decision, but I think it is necessary to defend their point of view. I work as a commercial real estate appraiser, and have worked on numerous cases in which the government has taken people's properties. I'd be willing to elaborate if anyone has questions on how this decision will likely play out.

[Dr. Tom 0]

BUT WAIT~!

 

Congress working to blunt high court's property seizure ruling

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Reacting to a recent Supreme Court decision, lawmakers are moving to make it more difficult for local governments to seize private property that stands in the way of shopping malls and other commercial development.

 

The House approved by a 231-189 vote a bid by conservative Scott Garrett, R-New Jersey, to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development.

 

"They're going to have to find their own money, instead of coming to Washington," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said after Thursday's vote.

 

In a 5-4 ruling last week, the Supreme Court said municipalities have broad power to bulldoze people's homes and put up shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as favoring rich corporations.

 

Legislation in the works also would ban the use of federal funds for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London (Connecticut) decision.

 

Susette Kelo, whose riverfront house in New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood is set to be razed, said she's glad politicians in Washington are working against the decision.

 

"I think the people in this country are outraged in this decision, and rightly so," she said. "Everyone in this country has just lost the right to own their own property."

 

Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, mentioned community development block grants as one type of money source that would be banned for projects advancing as a result of the Kelo decision.

 

The grant program provides money to more than 1,000 municipalities for everything from lead abatement in old buildings to improving water and sewage facilities.

 

Sensenbrenner and the committee's top Democrat, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, are drafting legislation that would prevent Washington from claiming eminent domain for economic development and block any state or local government from getting federal funds for projects.

 

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced a similar bill on Monday, with a House companion introduced by Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Montana. The Supreme Court has overturned other congressional attempts to supersede its decisions.

 

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California says she is opposed to any legislation that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

 

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

 

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

(http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/30/seizing.property.ap/index.html )

 

Good. Of course, whiny liberal op-ed pieces are claiming that House Republicans are doing this to "undermine the judiciary," when it says RIGHT IN THE GODDAMN CONSTITUTION that Congress can do what it's doing. I hope they're successful; this is one of the worst decisions I can remember.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Now THAT's a good use of the new law. 

 

The government sure has been interested in interfering with our various civil rights recently. 

 

-The war on gay marriage

-This new eminent domain ruling

-Various human rights abuses at various "gulags", some involving inmates who were forced into uncomfortable positions for hours

-Pollution laws being neutered until our atmosphere fills with smog

 

So you could almost say that they take our love, take our land, take us where we cannot stand, and they even took the skies from me! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dude...