High Court OKs Personal Property Seizures
 

Thursday, June 23, 2005

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.

They made a big mistake. No a Huge mistake I predict people will die over this decission. I know they will if they try to take my land. they might get me but I'll get more of the rich bastards

I am speechless. I had no idea this was even up for a vote. This is a disgusting law, much like several other recently enacted against the working man. Chris has predicted the future.

Folks it's all part of PNAC and NWO,etc.,etc. The silent but deadly takeover coming to a city and state near you. Will we have to wait until it affects you personally before you speak out against it? Wake up America, you don't own the land on which you live if these bastiches have their way with us. They consider us as lower life forms. An impediment to progress. Just more meat for the meat grinder. I truly believe that they will not be able to accomplish their will because of our Patriotic Spirit that they think has been lulled to sleep through the use of slick Madison Avenue advertising campaigns that obfuscate and confuse those who are unwilling to stick out their necks like the turtle in order to make progress. "The Redcoats are coming, the Redcoats are coming"


Doc Urb

Can anybody spell "activist judges"? Look at the political persuations of the majority deciding justices. When will folks start realizing that liberal justices and judges are the biggest threat to one of the most precious of personal freedoms, that of private ownership of real property? Destroy the right of private property and the complete destruction of the cournty is not far behind. Chris is right, there will be blood on the carpet before this is all settled. And a slight correction to the Revolutionary War warning: it's not that the Redcoats are coming, but that the liberals are already here. Maybe Micahel Savage is correct is his assertion the liberalism is a mental disorder.

Consider for a moment these two scenarios: how many people do you know who will be persecuted or prosecuted because of an infraction of the Patriot Act vs. how many people you know who will be threatened by an unjust seizure of personal private property? Now ask yourself, which is the greater threat to your personal freedoms? Hello? Is anybody home?

BEWARE OF A DOMINO EFFECT!

"The seizure of personal property could be but a feeler!" For a long time now - "Paranoid Old Me" has been sounding off over the (not so) slow destruction of portions of our time-tested way of life, civil liberties, and even our (taken for granted) rights!

The "Seizure Of Private Property Issue" goes back to the First Revolution in my opinion (the Civil War being the Second Revolution, again in my opinion)! The removal of God from our matrix, the glorification of homosexuality, economic-based (endless) warfare, foreign demands upon our way of life, an open border policy, and now - look out for the abandonment of term limits, just to mention a few! "A NEW WORLD ORDER INDEED!?"

"Could it be that we have no rights - only removable privileges?" And even these, if we don't sound off damned soon, will also fall along the wayside!? Can't happen says you - "LOOK AROUND PAL!!"

VERITAS :d: :d: :d:

Law`
 

This has been around for a very long, Long time. How do we build freeways? or railroads? we take the land for the good of the people. It was always a individual case (the people against farmer Brown) but now any one can take anyones land, All they have to do is show part of the land is for the good of "The people"
Problems there a-commin.

Ron

Makes me feel good that I fought for this. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We need a constitutional amendment
 

I believe we'll be getting a constitutional amendment coming soon. It will address this issue and it will get lots of bi-partisan support.
Write your congressman and Senators to Sponsor an amendment.

The difference between this and the traditional use of imminent domain is this ruling expands to it the whims of economic development of any particular governing body. We've had imminent domain for generations but it has been used only for public works projects, (roads, courthouses, canals, government railroads).

We need imminent domain but it must be carefully spelled out. We need a constitutional amendment clarifying the exact uses of imminent domain. Spelled out in detail so the Supreme Court can't change it. Walmart, Sears, and other Shopping Centers should not be allowed to pressure City Councils into using imminent domain for economic development.

This decision flat stinks. Get those liberals off the Supreme Court.

Keith

Maybe those who support the (ad hoc) seizure of private property, as well as the cessation of other basic rights and liberties, should be unceremoniously kicked in the ass and heaved (without benefits) off of the "Public's Political Welfare Roles", the "Supreme Nine Nincompoops included??" :md:

VERITAS