|
Supreme Court Court Rules That Cities Can Seize Private Property
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: |
Property can be taken for development-Supreme Court
Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:02 AM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person's home for a development project aimed at revitalizing a depressed local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.
Under the U.S. Constitution, governments can take private property through their so-called eminent domain powers in exchange for just compensation, but only when it is for public use.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority that the city's proposed disposition of the property at issue qualified as a "public use" under the Constitution.
He said the city's determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation was entitled to deference.
The decision affecting individual property rights could have broad impact. The issue has arisen across the nation as cities have sought new ways to promote growth and create jobs in depressed areas.
The Supreme Court's last major ruling on using eminent domain for private development was in 1954, when it upheld the taking of property to eliminate slums or blight after finding that such condemnations constituted a public use.
The decision was a victory for New London, which argued that because the development will create jobs, increase tax revenues and help the local economy, it satisfied the Constitution's public-use requirement.
The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property.
Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic.
He said promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted government function.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=8873080
|
Wtf? Than any local government can take any property and claim that it serves some public use. This is the conservatives (well at least the old school ones) should be jumping on, not some BS about gay marriage, abortion, etc. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
i didnt read any of the article. But they still have to pay for that property right? This has been there for quite some ing time. So please do shut your ing mouth.
I am just messing with you but do not get offended |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
i didnt read any of the article. But they still have to pay for that property right? This has been there for quite some ing time. So please do shut your ing mouth. |
as far as i understand it is that usually it would be done when its for the use of public, for example if a city want to build a new highway they can force them to do it, otherwise not. Now apperntly you can do it for "the public good". |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
i didnt read any of the article. But they still have to pay for that property right? This has been there for quite some ing time. So please do shut your ing mouth.
I am just messing with you but do not get offended |
Yes, emminent domain has been in the constitution since the beginning. However, in the past SCOTUS has only ruled that a city can seize property in the event that it is a slum or a depressed area. In this instance the locale is transferring property from residents to a corporation on the basis that it constitutes some public good. In other words, this is a VERY sweeping interpretation of emminent domain. If any corporation so desires your property they can feasibly cooperate with the local government to force you to hand over said property against your will. What property rights do you have at this point? |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
In other words, this is a VERY sweeping interpretation of emminent domain. If any corporation so desires your property they can feasibly cooperate with the local government to force you to hand over said property against your will. What property rights do you have at this point? |
o damn thats what they ruled? Man corporations are really running this governement. How could they pass something like that they are going against the people. Man but it won't really work the city of chicago has been wanting to expand o'hare but the residents refuse to sell their homes to the city. So all they have to do in order to not be taken advantage is to simply not move. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
o damn thats what they ruled? Man corporations are really running this governement. How could they pass something like that they are going against the people. Man but it won't really work the city of chicago has been wanting to expand o'hare but the residents refuse to sell their homes to the city. So all they have to do in order to not be taken advantage is to simply not move. |
See but even that is somewhat understandable for the government to seize since an airport is a truly public good. It would even be somewhat understandable for a governemnt to seize property for a highway or road or school, etc., because they are true public goods. In this instance, the government is transferring private ownership to different private ownership because a secondary public good is created.
Sandra Day O'Connor in dissent:
| quote: |
In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public--such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words "for public use" do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.
.
.
.
bAny property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. "[T]hat alone is a just government," wrote James Madison, "which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." For the National Gazette, Property, (Mar. 29, 1792), reprinted in 14 Papers of James Madison 266 (R. Rutland et al. eds. 1983).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-b...00&invol=04-108
|
Sigh ... stuff like this reminds me why I'm not a democrat. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Just saw this, and given your Libertarian stance on property rights I'm not surprised you posted this fairly quickly.
And yes, I am a Democrat (no news to you, Occ, I'm sure), but this ruling utterly pisses me off. This seems to completely trample over the 5th Amendment, and has got to be one of the most broad sweeping interpretations of the Constitution I have ever seen.
More often than not I tend to disagree with the strict Constitutional constructionists as they fail to comprehend and accept the changing times. But on this issue here, I'm 100% in their corner (Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist, O'Connor).
What are the possibilities of a Legislative push to somehow circumvent their ruling on this? Just a thought. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
I didn't get a chance to read the article (I'll probably do that a some later time) but I thought municipalities could already expropriate land if they needed it and the land owner is given fair market value.
What's the twist with this? :conf: |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I didn't get a chance to read the article (I'll probably do that a some later time) but I thought municipalities could already expropriate land if they needed it and the land owner is given fair market value.
What's the twist with this? :conf: |
IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT!!!! :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
More often than not I tend to disagree with the strict Constitutional constructionists as they fail to comprehend and accept the changing times. But on this issue here, I'm 100% in their corner (Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist, O'Connor). |
You're about to lick the sweetness of the Dark Side! Bwahahahaa!!!
Issues like this smack of greedy political motives. Generally I view it as a ploy by local officials to force property owners to forefeit their personal, private property rights so that the city can host a new Super Wal-Mart which will generate more tax revenues so they can waste more taxpayer money building ugly statues and monuments to themselves. Tax and spend boys, tax and spend. Don't mind the electorate while you're walking all over us. Wanna kick my dog while you're here??? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT!!!! :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: |
?
I did disclaimer myself dood...and I did mention that expropriation of land is NOT NEW...(granted it doesn't happen all the time).
I'll guess I'll just have to read it myself...:rolleyes:
[edit]
Well there it is right in the first sentence...
| quote: |
...[F]or a development project aimed at revitalizing a depressed local economy...
|
Wow...hope you don't own any land in a hole somewhere... :crazy: |
|
|
|
|
