So let me see if I've got this right...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_se...BhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...A2BHNlYwM3NDI-

They were talking about this on the radio this morning and I couldn't believe what I was hearing! I'll admit that politics generally fly right over my head, but I think I got this concept down right and it just made me go :eek:

If I understand this correctly, the government can now step in and give a person's land to private business, provided it will benefit the community...

I mean, I get the concept of Eminent Domain, but I always thought that was when the government needed to take a person's land to develop for public use. Never particularly liked that idea much either. But this giving a person's land to private business really rubs me the wrong way.

You are correct Ma'am. That's exactly what the Supreme Court said.

We must remember though that we can still change this by making Congress pass a law outlawing it. It will be tough since I'm sure private industry will try to convince our legislators that it is not in their best interests (i.e. bribe) to pass such a law....

Personally, I was absolutely disgusted with the Supreme Court's decision....

Oh dear... I hate being right. I can already see the big businesses breaking out the bubbly.

The links did not work...but I am interested in reading more into this!

Yeesh, it seems as if more and more rights are being lost :(

Here's another link....
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

This ruling really POPS MY CORK!

Anyone who lives in an area being developed knows of the cozy relationship between developers and local politicians. In many places, it's an endless cycle of campaign contributions, gifts, free trips, etc., followed by positive votes for whatever the developer wants. (Our last village mayor was living in a house owned by a local developer...free of charge.)

In some cases, it's simply a matter of the local politicians needing more tax dollars to spend (hence more permits for dense housing units where the road system or schools can't support it...too bad...condos bring in more tax dollars per sq ft.)

Now, with this ruling, the politicians and developers can eye your private property and envision a new mall...after all more tax dollars and more shopping are in the public's interest, isn't it?

Look out all you home owners who live in areas desired by developers...

I was surprised at this ruling. The vote was 5 to 4 in favor, so
it was close. I think it's wrong headed on many levels.

I can't believe in this day & age, people who say they have no
interest at all in politics. Here's a prime example of how politics
can & does effect our everyday lives.

I read that, and was shocked. I cannot believe they have the right to build over property without the owner's permission. :( That is SO unfair........People spend their hard earned life-savings on a little property of their own, and now the government has the right to take it away? UGH. What a STUPID, unfair law. The American people should unite and protest against this.

People are so...grrrrr

How hard did some of these homeowners work to get what they have? And now, they are being told they have to sell out? I'd fight it tooth and nail, especially if I was being asked to vacate due to a Wal Mart or something.

This reminds me of Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy

"The earth is being destroyed to make way for an interstellar freeway..."

Just thought I'd post the articles since the urls aren't working. :)

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 24, 7:34 AM ET



NEW LONDON, Conn. - Seven homeowners in this small waterfront community lost a groundbreaking U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday when justices ruled that City Hall may take their property through eminent domain to make way for a hotel and convention center.

ADVERTISEMENT

Word of the high court decision spread around Bill Von Winkle's part of town like news of a passing relative. "Hello?" he answered his cell phone. "Yeah, we lost. I know, hard to believe, huh?"

"I spent all the money I had," said Von Winkle, a retired deli owner, of the properties he bought in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. "I sold sandwiches to buy these properties. It took 21 years."

The court's decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who argued the decision favors rich corporations.

The fight over Fort Trumbull has been raging for years. New London once was a center for 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.

City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing the adjoining Pfizer center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

Most homeowners sold their properties to make way for wrecking crews, but seven families stubbornly refused to sell. Collectively, they owned 15 houses.

"The U.S. Supreme Court destroyed everybody's lives today, everybody who owns a home," said Richard Beyer, owner of two rental properties in the once-vibrant immigrant neighborhood.

Nationwide, however, legal experts said they don't expect local governments to rush to claim homes.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor who specializes in property rights.

In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote. He added that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

The four-member bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the power of eminent domain for urban renewal projects.

At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

Meanwhile, the decision did little to bring city officials and property owners here closer together.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

City Manager Richard Brown said he expects more lawsuits, but believes the land fight is over and doesn't expect a showdown when bulldozers arrive in the neighborhood.

Landowners in the lawsuit, however, pledged to continue their fight.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said Von Winkle, who said he would battle beyond the lawsuits and fight the bulldozers if necessary. "I won't be going anywhere."

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

___

Associated Press writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.

___



Ruling leaves door open to abuse

Fri Jun 24, 8:53 AM ET



For Suzette Kelo, protecting her Victorian dream house from the urban renewal bulldozer was always going to be an uphill fight. She was not only battling her city and its zeal to attract business to a depressed community. She was also up against more than a century of shifting law.

ADVERTISEMENT

On Thursday, Kelo and her neighbors in New London, Conn., lost. The Supreme Court ruled that the city was within its rights to seize their properties to round out a 90-acre waterfront redevelopment site.


The 5-4 decision, while rooted in high-court precedents over the past 50 years, leaves a door wide open for exploitation if craven or overzealous local officials are not restrained. States and localities clearly have leeway to seize private land, not just for a public purpose, such as a road or park, but also to hand to private developers. It's a power that invites abuse.


Lawyers for the property owners in New London had argued that such takings were unconstitutional, relying on the appealing reasoning that an individual's right to his home should not be put at risk. But the property owners were bucking the legal reality that as far back as the building of the railroads in the 19th century, the definition of public use has been steadily widened to embrace such public benefits as slum clearance and job creation - regardless of whether private parties might also profit.


And the court has long deferred to the judgment of state and local officials on such issues. Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote Thursday's dissent, questioned when the case was argued in February whether the justices should "second-guess" New London's conclusion.


New London impressed the court majority with a carefully formulated economic development plan that would broadly benefit the community. But other localities have brazenly abused their power to seize citizens' property:


• A city in Washington state removed a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years supposedly to expand a sewer plant, then sold the land to an auto dealership.


• A New Jersey development agency tried to seize an elderly woman's home and two businesses to provide more parking for one of Donald Trump's casino hotels; the state Supreme Court stopped it.


• A city in Kansas took a used-car lot and turned it over to the new-car dealer next door, who had failed in his efforts to buy the site from the previous owner.


The Supreme Court's majority pointed out that states have the power to impose stricter requirements on taking private property. Many already do.


The onus is now on the rest to protect property owners against such victimization, while allowing the fair acquisition of land when it is truly in the public interest.

I am not happy about the ruling myself but there is more to it. The ruling allows the states to decide. Not every state is going to pass or allow such a law. There are only 8 states that does allow this to occur. That is what the supreme court upheld. There are only a select more states that even address the issue in their state laws. A majority of states don't even have the wording for such situation.
The media is overplaying the issue and going to extremes with it. Imagine that!:rolleyes: I am uncomfortable with the concept of modifying neighborhoods into shopping centers but new housing is already going into that direction already. Seaside Village in Florida where the movie with Jim Carrey was filmed is a good example. The concept is to live and work in the same area. They develop a whole housing area that is directly connected to shopping/offices. We have one of those going up nearby where I live.
I am sure this ruling will effect some people but for the vast majority it won't. It will take too long to overturn anyways.