[Vision2020] Supreme Court on eminent domain

[Mark Solomon]

As far as I know this decision is not related to the concept of 
regulatory takings (for environmental protection) or assumed property 
rights (as in grazing privileges on public lands).

Constitutional? Yes. That's what the Supreme Court decides. The exact 
words of the constitution known as the takings clause are:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

The court broadly extended of the definition of "public use" for 
purposes of a governmental action taking private property. Do I 
agree? No.

Let's say that the City of Moscow decided that expansion of the UI 
towards downtown, or the creation of a convention center or (fill in 
the blank) was in its essential economic interest. Under this ruling, 
the City could declare eminent domain and buy out the various ag 
related and other industries along the tracks (at fair market value, 
but with no ability of the private property owner to say "no").

Yikes!

Mark Solomon




At 1:13 PM -0700 6/23/05, lfalen wrote:
>This is just another example of the courts ruling on the basis of 
>there own beliefs instead of sticking to the Constitution. See 
>davebudge.com for a good commentary on this. For anyone that may 
>need  good lawyers on Properties Rights, my nephew and his wife 
>specialize in Range law and Properties Rights. They are Frank and 
>Karen(Budd) Falen and are located in Cheyenne, Wo..
>-----Original message-----
>From: Mark Solomon msolomon at moscow.com
>Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:08:50 -0700
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Supreme Court on eminent domain
>
>>  This is so scary I can't believe it. I urge anyone concerned locally
>>  to get serious about participating in the City and County P&Z's and
>>  the Latah Economic Development Committee as the likely places where
>>  such a now-sanctioned abuse of governmental power would originate.
>>
>>  Mark Solomon
>>  *******
>>  June 23, 2005
>>
>>  Justices Refuse to Increase Land-Use Oversight
>>
>>    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>>
>>  WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled that local
>>  governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their
>>  will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in
>>  communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property
>>  rights.
>>
>>  Thursday's 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 now have wide power to bulldoze residences for
>>  projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order 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, Conn., 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.
>>
>>  Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned
>>  in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington
>>  public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
>>
>>  New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the
>>  whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently
>>  the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban
>>  areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>  City officials envision a commercial development that would attract
>>  tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer
>>  Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
>>
>>  New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities,
>>  which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to
>>  spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's
>>  Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
>>
>>  Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just
>>  compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment.
>>  However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any
>>  price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
>>
>>  Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050623/dfbf3602/attachment.htm