Government Land siezures for Private Business

[Unraveller]

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.

I was suprised that there wasn't a discussion on this already, it's a hot topic among foreign teachers here in China (probably because it's so similar to the Chinese government's policy).

What do you think of it? Is it right that the government can force you to move because some developer has decided that he really wants to build a mall where you live? I don't have a problem with traditional Eminent Domain laws, the government's supposed to have the best interests of the people at heart (even though you still hear stories of bribery etc.), but when you get into the realms of private business is it right that they can force the deal through? After all, the main driving force behind private development is profit, the good of the people tends to be a long way down the list...

[I. R. Shogun]

I say heck no it's not right that the government can just say get lost whenever Johnny Corporate desides my house could be better used for a mall or something. It's an outrage!! America has enough malls and corporate offices already. And who's expected to go to these areas now that the people have been booted out?! Just, I, I can't even begin to describe my outrage!!!!

[kartaron]

Developers now have a vested interest in negotiating directly with the government for an eminent domain ruling instead of negotiating a price with the actual owners. Im not terribly happy about blight r public use as reasons either but at least they were hurtles that needed to be surpassed.

Clearly the judges do not think that anything so frivolous as property ownership should get in the way of government's plans. They should be impeached unless they re-consider and overturn this ruling immediately.


Wall Street Journal:
The Supreme Court's "liberal" wing has a reputation in some circles as a guardian of the little guy and a protector of civil liberties. That deserves reconsideration in light of yesterday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Court's four liberals (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) combined with the protean Anthony Kennedy to rule that local governments have more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses.

No one disputes that this power of "eminent domain" makes sense in limited circumstances; the Constitution's Fifth Amendment explicitly provides for it. But the plain reading of that Amendment's "takings clause" also appears to require that eminent domain be invoked only when land is required for genuine "public use" such as roads. It further requires that the government pay owners "just compensation" in such cases.

The founding fathers added this clause to the Fifth Amendment--which also guarantees "due process" and protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination--because they understood that there could be no meaningful liberty in a country where the fruits of one's labor are subject to arbitrary government seizure.

That protection was immensely diminished by yesterday's 5-4 decision, which effectively erased the requirement that eminent domain be invoked for "public use." The Court said that the city of New London, Connecticut, was justified in evicting a group of plaintiffs led by homeowner Susette Kelo from their properties to make way for private development including a hotel and a Pfizer Corp. office. (Yes, the pharmaceutical Pfizer.) The properties to be seized and destroyed include Victorian homes and small businesses that have been in families for generations.

"The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Justice Kennedy wrote in concurrence that this could be considered public use because the development plan was "comprehensive" and "meant to address a serious city-wide depression." In other words, local governments can do what they want as long as they can plausibly argue that any kind of public interest will be served.

In his clarifying dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas exposes this logic for the government land grab that it is. He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use Clause" with a very different "public purpose" test: "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'"

And in a separate dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion--take from the poor, give to the rich--would become the norm, not the exception: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

That prospect helps explain the unusual coalition supporting the property owners in the case, ranging from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead lawyers) to the NAACP, AARP and the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The latter three groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly. Justice Thomas's opinion cites a wealth of data to that effect.

And it's not just the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment that's undermined by Kelo. So too is the guarantee of "just compensation." Why? Because there is no need to invoke eminent domain if developers are willing to pay what owners themselves consider just compensation.

Just compensation may differ substantially from so-called fair market value given the sentimental and other values many of us attach to our homes and other property. Even eager sellers will be hurt by Kelo, since developers will have every incentive to lowball their bids now that they can freely threaten to invoke eminent domain.

When you have the Wall Street Journal arguing against something that expands the power of businesses you have gone WAY too far.

[Anduril]

It's important for the government to be able to build roads through private property in order for better commerce and such. But it's important for them to be very careful; I almost had a highway put through my property, and we were able to stop it. But I am surprised that a government would allow this sort of destruction for private businesses.

[Unraveller]

It is supposedly only for developments that:

will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue

but since any business will provide employment and generate tax revenue it's pretty much a moot point. Hell, a guy who wants to build a mansion could argue that he would employ servants, thus creating employment and tax revenue.

On an aside, how many people were aware of this before it was posted here?

[kartaron]

I heard about it thursday on Boortz, a libertatian talk radio show. I tried to read about it over the weekend and I had posted a comment about it in the Constitutional Crisis thead a day or two ago. The problem is that major news organizations are treating it like it's not a big deal.

Even on Fox News the only reference to the Supreme Court on their page is the tedious 10 Commandments issue.

[Sorcha]

I heard about it. And my parents talked about it alot today. And yeah, Karaton...I thought it was odd that they aren't making that big of a deal about it. I mean, sheerly for shock value, you'd expect them to broadcast a BIT more about it. I think the whole thing is kinda astonishing...I'm still having trouble wrapping my mind around it, tbh. My first thought was they could take our neigborhood and build a strip mall. After all, jobs are scarce in my area....incredible.

[Unraveller]

Ok, to play Devil's Advocate, is it right that a developer could gather the necessary funds to build a commercial structure (say a big mall) that would provide some badly needed services for the community, plenty of employment opportunities and give the kids somewhere to go other than an alleyway or street corner; then buy up MOST of the necessary land but get stymied because some old lady refuses to move because she likes her house?

[kartaron]

Of course its wrong. What if she cant afford to buy another home with the money? What if more is owed on the house than it is valued by the city? Why is her desire less important than that of the developer?

[Unraveller]

But say the offer made is generous and she just doesn't want to move, why is her desire more important than the good of the community? (Given the jobs etc the development will bring)

[kartaron]

It cant be a government by, for and of the people, if the people themselves arent interested in participating. If the community needs the shopping center let them give up their land. Else forget about it. If the community isnt willing to (or too foolish to) give up their land they arent deserving of such an investment in the first place. It is no more reasonable to forfeit a dissenter's property rights than it is to forfeit their vote or their freedom of speech.

It either is a right to own property or it is not. Having a sometimes property right only means you wont have that right when it is important. It would not be hard to visualize an America in a few years that forfeits your personal property because you committed a misdemenor, got a traffic citation or made a mistake on your taxes. That confiscation would qualify as serving the 'public good' any number of ways.

[Jnanee Highwind]

I agree with kartaron, the most direct and immediate needs of people are food, water and a house to live in. If they are evicted from their homes they have to move elsewhere, and some people can't afford to buy a place nearby, so they'll have to move further away and therefore not benefit from the malls that these people are going to build. It just doesn't seem right when you take away the property of some humans to cater to other humans.

[Unraveller]

So why in the HELL did they do it? That was the only possible reason (apart from bribery by Developers, which I don't think anyone even wants to consider...) that I could come up with. Seriously, can anyone give me a half-way plausible explanation?

[kartaron]

Originally Posted by Unraveller

So why in the HELL did they do it? That was the only possible reason (apart from bribery by Developers, which I don't think anyone even wants to consider...) that I could come up with. Seriously, can anyone give me a half-way plausible explanation?

One idea:
"From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Marx.