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.

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.

The 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as handing “disproportionate influence and power” to the well-heeled — represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex.

Those residents 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.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to “just compensation” for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. But residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

“It’s a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,” said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. “I won’t be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.”

Click for related content
Live Vote: What's your view of Supreme Court ruling?
Background on key U.S. Supreme Court cases




Jobs, tax revenue cited
Writing for the court’s majority in Thursday’s ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he 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,” Stevens wrote.

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

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.

“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 Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with “just compensation,” is unconstitutional.

“The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful,” Thomas wrote. “So-called ’urban renewal’ programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted.”

Homeowners refused to budge
The case involves Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., who filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

The residents had refused to budge, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property.

“I’m not willing to give up what I have just because someone else can generate more taxes here,” said homeowner Matthew Dery, whose family has lived in the neighborhood known as Fort Trumbull for more than 100 years.

New London contends the condemnations are proper because the development plans serving a “public purpose” — such as boosting economic growth — are valid “public use” projects that outweigh the property rights of the homeowners.

The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with New London, ruling 4-3 in March 2004 that the mere promise of additional tax revenue justified the condemnation.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned between 1998 and 2002, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

advertisement

In many cases, according to the group, cities are pushing the limits of their power to accommodate wealthy developers. Courts, meanwhile, are divided over the extent of city power, with seven states saying economic development can justify a taking and eight states allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

In New London, city officials envision replacing a stagnant enclave with commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

“The record is clear that New London was a city desperate for economic rejuvenation,” the city’s legal filing states, in asking the high court to defer to local governments in deciding what constitutes “public use.”

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

Where other states stand
According to the residents’ filing, the seven states that allow condemnations for private business development alone are Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.

Eight states forbid the use of eminent domain when the economic purpose is not to eliminate blight; they are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington.

Another three — Delaware, New Hampshire and Massachusetts — have indicated they probably will find condemnations for economic development alone unconstitutional, while the remaining states have not addressed or spoken clearly to the question.

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

slowly but surely our freedom is being taken away.

this is something i would expect to hear from europe

i hope they keep fighting this one

I heard this on the news today and thought it was completely ridiculous!!
Imagine living ina home for 50 years, paying it off and having some ding dong developer being able to grease the palm of some city official to be able to take your property.
It's just wrong.

they could do this already

the issue that was raised is that this law expands it to allow the homes to be taken for private projects, ie instead of roads and such which was allowable under existing law, they can now take it for a privately owned shopping mall etc

Correct. This has been a right of government for a long, long time.

em·i·nent do·main
n.
The right of the government to take property from a private owner for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of its sovereignty over all lands within its jurisdiction see also condemn expropriate take
- The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to compensate the owner of property taken by eminent domain, stating “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” State constitutions contain similar provisions requiring that the property owner receive just compensation for the property taken.


The twist is that the Supreme Court has now given the go ahead for local governments to appropriate private land, then sell it to other private concerns. Prior to this, it has only been used to provide land for public works ie: roads, sewage treatment plants, etc.

Orders from BIG BROTHER:
Every one bow down and worship the almighty dollar.


NOT!


Doesn't America have something in it's constitution against this sort of thing?

It is disgusting, and scary. The US government on all levels is just organized crime. But at least the mob will protect you if you give them the money they ask for. Government takes your protection money (taxes) and still will stab you in the back.

It sounds like they do that legally.


So sad.

Yes, yes it does. See my earlier post. The 5th amendment requires the government to compenste you if your lands are seized under the entitlement of Eminent Domain.

Wow, that's utter bullshit. So they can take away the home of someone, even if they've paid it off fully?

I take it none of you have heard of eminent domain?

I think there might be a posting about it, somewhere. Maybe even on this thread.

I must also add that I don't think the government's compensation for your house is equal or even close to market value either. This happened to a friend of mine. Her home was taken to build a new highway exit. Houses in the area were selling for about $400,000. She was given $175,000 for it. She had to move out of state to buy a new home.

This is rediculous. The gov now taking for private development. This case was in favor some big drug company who moved to the area and put up a complex by a river. The city promised the drug company it would build a hotel and shops on the river as a perk / accomodation for the drug company moving there and bringing jobs. Many of the residents did not want to sell. This is not a freeway development. I think this is going to far. The developers of the proposed hotel should be forced to buy the land from the owners at whatever price they will sell even if its 5x market. They gov should not force a sale at subjective market value..

it's just wrong in so many ways. Goes to show all our Government cares about is taking care of the corporations instead of its citzens. its too bad were letting all this happen.

it just goes to say that if you are in the lower monetary bracket in america,you
are gonna end up,a$$ up,face down everytime!

This reaches 'far beyond' lower monetary bracket America. The day of private property ownership in America is over. We are now a Communist country.

Thomas Jefferson said: If a government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take everything you have.

I don't know which I am more of...sad or angry.

Both!

Exactly, joc. Finally something I agree with, except it's not commies, it's imperial-elitists.

Feudal system all over again. Seize your land, sell it to the highest bidder at 1/10th the price, go to the Jones website

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

read that sh**- absolute outrage. This is basically banning private property (for the poor of course, not the elite).

out of curiousity, who is responsible for this change?

The US Supreme Court - 5 of the 9 ruled that cities and communities throughout the country now have carte blanche authority to throw people off their private property for private developers use. That means anything and everything from office buildings to shopping malls to private golf courses!!

It's a potential nightmare of untold proportions - no American is now safe and secure in owning their own property.

I fear things will only get worse - it really is a New World Order coming to reality, bathory!! We need to REALIZE what they are doing to all of us, and what they will do at any time in the near future. You may not believe 9/11 was an inside job, but at least look at what the fallout has been from it.......

9/11 brought us the Patriot Act 1 and 2, Homeland Security, loss of major portions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The UN has control of everything from the Statue of Liberty to the Grand Canyon through the parks protection act. Now, with this decision....ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN can lose their very home!!

you mistake my opposition to various conspiracies and defense of the Bush administration for undying love of the government:P

That said, I really do think its a bad decision, and sets a terrible precedent