<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Vision2020] Supreme Court on eminent
domain</title></head><body>
<div>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).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Constitutional? Yes. That's what the Supreme Court decides. The
exact words of the constitution known as the takings clause are:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>"<tt><font size="+1" color="#000000">nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just
compensation</font></tt>"</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The court broadly extended of the definition of "public use"
for purposes of a governmental action taking private property. Do I
agree? No.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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").</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Yikes!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Mark Solomon</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 1:13 PM -0700 6/23/05, lfalen wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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..<br>
-----Original message-----<br>
From: Mark Solomon msolomon@moscow.com<br>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:08:50 -0700<br>
To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>
Subject: [Vision2020] Supreme Court on eminent domain<br>
<br>
> This is so scary I can't believe it. I urge anyone concerned
locally<br>
> to get serious about participating in the City and County
P&Z's and<br>
> the Latah Economic Development Committee as the likely places
where<br>
> such a now-sanctioned abuse of governmental power would
originate.<br>
><br>
> Mark Solomon<br>
> *******<br>
> June 23, 2005<br>
><br>
> Justices Refuse to Increase Land-Use Oversight<br>
><br>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS<br>
><br>
><br>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled that local<br>
> governments may seize people's homes and businesses against
their<br>
> will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited
in<br>
> communities where economic growth conflicts with individual
property<br>
> rights.<br>
><br>
> Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some
Connecticut<br>
> residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for
an<br>
> office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take
their<br>
> land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads
or<br>
> schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.<br>
><br>
> As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences
for<br>
> projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order
to<br>
> generate tax revenue.<br>
><br>
> Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding
whether a<br>
> development project will benefit the community, justices
said.<br>
><br>
> "The city has carefully formulated an economic development
that it<br>
> believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community,<br>
> including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased
tax<br>
> revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the
majority.<br>
><br>
> He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth
Bader<br>
> Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.<br>
><br>
> At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows<br>
> governments to take private property through eminent domain if
the<br>
> land is for "public use."<br>
><br>
> Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class<br>
> neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city
officials<br>
> announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel,
health<br>
> club and offices.<br>
><br>
> New London officials countered that the private development
plans<br>
> served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that
outweighed<br>
> the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't
blighted.<br>
><br>
> Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on
many</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> cases before the court, issued a
stinging dissent. She argued that<br>
> cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families,
even<br>
> if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate
wealthy<br>
> developers.<br>
><br>
> The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many
allowing a<br>
> taking only if it eliminates blight.<br>
><br>
> "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another
private<br>
> party, but the fallout from this decision will not be
random,"<br>
> O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those
citizens<br>
> with disproportionate influence and power in the political
process,<br>
> including large corporations and development firms."<br>
><br>
> She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist,<br>
> as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.<br>
><br>
> Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or
condemned<br>
> in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a
Washington<br>
> public interest law firm representing the New London
homeowners.<br>
><br>
> New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of
the<br>
> whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More
recently<br>
> the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting
urban<br>
> areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.<br>
><br>
> The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes<br>
> Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances
have<br>
> been owned by several generations of families. Among the New
London<br>
> residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in
the<br>
> same home for more than 50 years.<br>
><br>
> City officials envision a commercial development that would
attract<br>
> tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining
Pfizer<br>
> Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.<br>
><br>
> New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of
Cities,<br>
> which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical
to<br>
> spurring urban renewal with development projects such
Baltimore's<br>
> Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.<br>
><br>
> Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to
"just<br>
> compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth
Amendment.<br>
> However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at
any<br>
> price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.<br>
><br>
> Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company<br>
></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>