| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
24 Jun 2005 01:52:38 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Homes may be 'taken' for private projects |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/
Homes may be 'taken' for private projects
Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005
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.
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.”
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.
Issue across the country
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.
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.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Homes may be 'taken' for private projects |
24 Jun 2005 02:02:23 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <vopmb19mkp054ece8d16f89og02evir2nu@4ax.com>, stoney
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
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.
USA, Inc...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Homes may be 'taken' for private projects |
24 Jun 2005 02:09:43 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:NcSdnfxlhP499CbfRVn-1g@megapath.net...
In our last episode <vopmb19mkp054ece8d16f89og02evir2nu@4ax.com>, stoney
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
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.
USA, Inc...
"...One Nation, under God(tm), Incorporated..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Homes may be 'taken' for private projects |
24 Jun 2005 05:21:38 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <HXJue.73348$6g3.31769@tornado.texas.rr.com>, The
other Donald pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:NcSdnfxlhP499CbfRVn-1g@megapath.net...
In our last episode <vopmb19mkp054ece8d16f89og02evir2nu@4ax.com>, stoney
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
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.
USA, Inc...
"...One Nation, under God(tm), Incorporated..."
"Our CEO who art in heaven,
Halliburton be thy name.
Thy profits come,
thy stock options be done..."
(You know, over 500 years ago, when Columbus washed up on these shores,
there was one--and only one--thought in his mind: gold. The more things
change, the more they stay the same.)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Homes may be 'taken' for private projects |
24 Jun 2005 09:16:12 AM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:NcSdnfxlhP499CbfRVn-1g@megapath.net...
In our last episode <vopmb19mkp054ece8d16f89og02evir2nu@4ax.com>, stoney
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
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.
USA, Inc...
"...One Nation, under God(tm), Incorporated..."
I still like Family Circus' version:
"...one nation, under God, invisible..."
;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
