Scram, we need your land for the shopping mall

[Tom Storer]

Extraordinary. From CNN:

High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

Thursday, June 23, 2005 Posted: 1450 GMT (2250 HKT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- 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.

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 have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes 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, Connecticut, 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.

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.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"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 H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

[Brian Olewnick]

Dammit, Tom!

But since you posted the whole story, I'll just append my own remarks from my post.

Curious to see if Dems will defend this decision. Basically the Court, with the "conservatives" dissenting, ruled that cities have the right of eminent domain not just in cases like roads, schools, etc., but to pave the way for hotel developers at the expense of private homes. Amazing. So if you're a well-heeled real estate developer (with the accompanying influence on local government) and a home-owner declines your offer of a buy-out, you can simply force the person off his land to build a hotel/condo/what-have-you. And it's the "liberals" who voted in favor fo this policy!

[jesus marion joseph]

Hey, Goody, is this another case of the SC trying to atone for Bush v. Gore??

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Hey, Goody, is this another case of the SC trying to atone for Bush v. Gore??

Hahahahaha....................

Though that does seem like one possible Goodzter spin, I"d be willing to bet that he accidently misses this thread completely.


Oh, and thanks Tom. Ollie's thread sucked bigtime so I decided to come over here where the action is.

And here I thought it was criminal in the case of road expansion. I'm speechless.

Anybody here ever read Stephen Kings short story called Roadwork? That's how I'd want to go out if the government ever came to seize my property for a strip mall that will be half empty at best.

[crawjo]

Yes, I anxiously await the denunciations of the liberal judges who have made this odious decision.

[Noj]

WTF.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Oh, and thanks Tom. Ollie's thread sucked bigtime so I decided to come over here where the action is.

You know, I could've used my massive influence around here to get Tom's thread deleted but I give the guy a break once in a while. I mean, he's stuck in France and all, gotta throw him a bone once in a while.

[Root Doctor]

Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer are obviously unfamiliar with Ed Abbey's "The Brave Cowboy." Or decency, for that matter.

[groover]

The only legitimate recourse citizens have against eminent domain seizure is to appeal the amount of the settlement. If my house were seized for private economic development, I'd be suing for at least the commercial value of the property (which should exceed it's residential value), if not treble that. I hope we see a case like that soon.

[Enforcer]

I just read about this earlier this morning. Unbelievable. Really f**king amazing.

[Brian Olewnick]

But why on earth should "eminent domain" come to include privately-owned shopping malls, hotels or condos?

[groover]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

But why on earth should "eminent domain" come to include privately-owned shopping malls, hotels or condos?

Because the business of America is business! Manifest destiny! Money doesn't talk, it swears!

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by groover

Because the business of America is business! Manifest destiny! Money doesn't talk, it swears!

Yeah, fine. So explain the breakdown of the court's vote on this one. Weren't you one of the ones (forgive me if I'm misremembering) arguing that there's an essential difference between Democrats and Republicans?

[curmudgeonpatrol]

could Pfizer's vicinity have something to do with this case?

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

You know, I could've used my massive influence around here to get Tom's thread deleted but I give the guy a break once in a while. I mean, he's stuck in France and all, gotta throw him a bone once in a while.

Hahaha...............that's true.

Poor bastard.

Yeah, fine. So explain the breakdown of the court's vote on this one. Weren't you one of the ones (forgive me if I'm misremembering) arguing that there's an essential difference between Democrats and Republicans?

Stupid Ollie.

Of course, it's quite simple. Dems/libs are for the common man and Pubs/conservatives are for........................

No, wait.

Hmmmm.......................





*paging Tristano's Ghost, paging Tristano's Ghost, please pick up the nearest white courtesy phone*

[groover]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Yeah, fine. So explain the breakdown of the court's vote on this one. Weren't you one of the ones (forgive me if I'm misremembering) arguing that there's an essential difference between Democrats and Republicans?

I don't remember either, Brian. The results are not consistent with my first statement, I'll admit. The Democrat-leaning justices seem to be favoring government's ability to redress social problems by granting it more power, whereas the Republican-leaning justices seem to have come down in favor of control via the marketplace. Wealthy investors have traditionally acquired the land they need by offering landowners enough cash to make them sell voluntarily. That's the American way!

Sorry for ignoring your original thread, BTW.

Where's Chris A when you really need him?


I know for a fact he could effortlessly lay this entire mess at the feet of that appointed moron and his band of thugs.


I'm so sentimental sometimes.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Dammit, Tom!

But since you posted the whole story, I'll just append my own remarks from my post.

Curious to see if Dems will defend this decision. Basically the Court, with the "conservatives" dissenting, ruled that cities have the right of eminent domain not just in cases like roads, schools, etc., but to pave the way for hotel developers at the expense of private homes. Amazing. So if you're a well-heeled real estate developer (with the accompanying influence on local government) and a home-owner declines your offer of a buy-out, you can simply force the person off his land to build a hotel/condo/what-have-you. And it's the "liberals" who voted in favor fo this policy!

Brian,
I agree... I was going to post this story earlier this a.m. but had to leave for taping. Rare that I find myself on the side of Rehnquist, Thomas, etc... but they were absolutely right in this case.

[clinthopson]

And al the time I thought the conservatives were for property rights. Hmmm.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

And al the time I thought the conservatives were for property rights. Hmmm.

In this case, they are.

If this is the kind of decision that a Democratic-leaning court can render, then maybe we have less to fear from Bush stacking the court then previously imagined. I mean, Bush has gone on record as saying his favorite justices are Scalia and Thomas. If there were more guys like Scalia and Thomas on the court, this decision would have gone the other way.

Or, probably more accurately, we're pretty much screwed no matter who is on the court.

[groover]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Or, probably more accurately, we're pretty much screwed no matter who is on the court.

To paraphrase Mose Allison, don't worry 'bout a thing 'cause you know nothing's gonna turn out right.

[Enforcer]

News like this reminds me why I can't bother affiliating myself with either major (or any other) party. If it pains the political system of the U.S. that people like me don't feel like compromising on issues important to us to achieve a common goal and fit in a convenient You're Either For Us Or Against Us box, then too f**king bad for the political system of the U.S.

Feeling really full after eating too much for lunch,
Larry

[walto]

I suppose my doubts about the whole notion of private ownership of natural resources (like parcels of land) won't be particularly welcome on this thread. Anyhow, even if one does like private landownership, I don't see any obvious hard and fast distinctions between "public interests" (like road building) and "economic development" (like mall building). Lots of gray there, I'd think.


So (without reading the decision, the briefs or really knowing anything at all about this case ), I don't mind sticking with the majority decision here.

[Coda]

I understand why the liberal judges voted the way they did. It makes perfect sense to me, and it should to you too. Let me explain:

First, all Republicans are rich. They own and control everything. This would include both the private property and the business that would exert eminent domain over the private property.

Democrats are poor....They don't own anything.

Along comes Wallmart who buys out the private property, puts up a large warehouse that drives down property values for their republican neighbors while at the same time producing lots and lots of jobs and lots and lots of tax revenue to be spent on education and healthcare.

[moneyp]

Reposted from the other thread:

That article doesn't summarize the opinion very well. I'm not sure I'm with the majority on this one as far as the result, but the majority relied on case law that supports their position, and unless they're willing to outright overturn those cases, it looks like they had little choice in their decision. I'll have to take a look at the opinions, the concurrence and both dissents later on tonight.

JMJ, have you looked at any of the opinions yet?

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by walto

I don't see any obvious hard and fast distinctions between "public interests" (like road building) and "economic development" (like mall building).

How about public and private property (leaving aside Georgist wishes here)?

You really have no problem with Home Depot kicking you and your neighbors out of your homes if you don't want to move? Hard to imagine.

[Monte Smith]

It's a shocking decision. Boy, the liberals on the court are on a roll.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by mone peterson

Reposted from the other thread:

That article doesn't summarize the opinion very well. I'm not sure I'm with the majority on this one as far as the result, but the majority relied on case law that supports their position, and unless they're willing to outright overturn those cases, it looks like they had little choice in their decision. I'll have to take a look at the opinions, the concurrence and both dissents later on tonight.

JMJ, have you looked at any of the opinions yet?

I haven't read this decision yet, but I did my moot court assignment in law school on 5th amendment takings, and I can tell you that the case law in this area is not voluminous, so there shouldn't be any compelling reason for the court *not* to overturn them, if that was necessary. I'm mildly suprised by the decision, although the rationale (as I've heard it descried on the radio) doesn't seem to be entirely from outer space.

[walto]

How about public and private property (leaving aside Georgist wishes here)?

Right, I think it's fuzzy. Roads are often built to accomodate private interests--often factories. Here there was said to be a public interest in a private enterprise.

You really have no problem with Home Depot kicking you and your neighbors out of your homes if you don't want to move? Hard to imagine.

I think that's kind of a mistatement of what happened. The town (i.e., the people who live there) decided that the property was better used for something else besides residences. Whether I'd personally like it if it happened to me doesn't seem terribly relevant, here--(like would I like it if capital punishment were applied to me). I'm for the general principle of letting communities decide what to do with their land.

[jesus marion joseph]

For the record, I would prefer *not* to have capital punishment carried out on me.