Staredit Network

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

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.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

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.

You saying I live in canada? I live Florida.

Unless you meant that's why I SHOULD live in Canada. Then, that's different.
[right][snapback]244426[/snapback][/right]

You've been feeding lies since, the table cloth...

WHY DON'T THE PRESIDENTS FIGHT THE WARS!!!  WHY DO THEY ALWAYS SEND THE POOR!

I think that Government is Selfish, No matter where you live. I think even though they are we can't Live without them. We live Day by day getting used to everything. See They try and reap in the benfits.. i think its wrong but noone is perfect. This is an oppionion of a 15 year old. I don't really own anything that could be own by Government but i still think its wrong. My oppinion is based of News and etc. But i still stand by it being wrong.
[right][snapback]247401[/snapback][/right]

We don't live in a facist nation! Blah blah blah (don't remember that part) You rely on our protection, yet you feed us lies from the tablecloth!

Anyways, I think it is okay if they can confiscate some properties, but what I do NOT find okay is that they do not offer reasonable amount of cash. They gave a person 60,000 dollars for a 250,000 dollars, and the person had -no choice- but to accept. Thats WAY unreasonable.
[right][snapback]248591[/snapback][/right]

Timmy, you've obviously never moved, if you had, you would know that its not a "no problem thing", it takes several years to settle into a house and really consider it your home, also, the fact that there is simply no assurance that your property is in fact being confiscated for entirely legitmate reasons. This also brings up what you consider to be a legitimate reason, isn't the government  not supposed to get involved in private ventures. Confiscating property to benifit a corporate entity most definitly involves a private entity. This law seems to me like just another way for corrupt persons in the government to profit from creating laws that benifit companies they are affiliated with. Also, why do they have the right to evict you, its your property, not the governments, your property which you purchased with your own money, the government's involvment with it stops at property tax.
Heres an example scenario, John Doe is a government official who'se brother works for XYZ Shoes, he has several hundred shares of stock in XYZ shoes. Now, Mr.Jones lives in a house along a street often traveled, XYZ shoes would profit greatly from opening a store on that street, but there are no houses for sale. If XYZ shoes were to get a store along this street, their stock value would likly skyrocket.  John doe orders that mr.Jones be evicted and his house demolished, to make way for a "fine store, which would surely boost economic growth and provide jobs to our wonderful nation. Mr.Jones recieves little compensation for his home, and ends up becoming a hobo.
Of course, that hasn't happened, but it could easily happen with this law.
[right][snapback]248730[/snapback][/right]