http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783..html
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 11:13 AM
WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments
may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private
development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic
growth often is at war with individual property 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.
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.
Connecticut 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."
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the
families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong
today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
Writing for the court, 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 in an
opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to
sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.
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.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://PerkinsTragedy.org http://www.rightard.org/
End Republican race hatred: http://www.thedarkwind.org/
.
|
