quote: WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses _ even against their will _ for private economic development.
...
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 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.
...
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.
posted
I just want this remembered the next time someone complains about the conservatives on the Court not caring about individual rights.
As I've said before, the difference isn't how much one side protects individual rights - it's about which rights are protected.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand how any judge could rule that way in good conscience. I don't understand the reasoning. I thought they were supposed to uphold laws--how are they doing that here?
posted
This is just sad. I believe, too, that when municipalities take land from people for widening roads, whatever, they often pay below fair market value for the land.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question is what constitutes public use, as mentioned here:
quote:nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
-the fifth amendment
They've held that even though the land goes to private developers, its for public use in a sufficient sense.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paying below the fair market value would be almost certainly squashed by courts if a case were brought; I'm pretty certain several cases have upheld that just compensation means a reasonable market value (not appraised value, but value it could have been reasonably sold for).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But in this case, I bet they were certainly paid below market value for what residents could have received from a private developer in the same situation.
Continguous parcels almost always cost more when someone wants to own them all. Similar to a control premium in stock purchases.
That's why Disney bought options in secret on all the land it wanted for Disney America.
posted
I find it frightening that I agree with Rehnquist, Scalia, a Thomas on anything, so I'm wondering what I'm missing here.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt it. The amount of compensation probably hasn't been at issue yet. I'd have to read the whole opinion to be sure. But I can see it as a follow on case.
quote:I find it frightening that I agree with Rehnquist, Scalia, a Thomas on anything, so I'm wondering what I'm missing here.
Well, Scalia is one of only two justices who thought Hamdi should be either charged or released.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now the court should decide that the only fair price for stealing peoples' homes to give to some private corporation is a gazillion trillian dollars for each acre.
Still angry, Katarain
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that I said 'often'. I don't have anything about it in front of me at the moment, and I'm not disputing that the courts sometimes step in and make the state play nice, if it's brought to court, but I am saying that I have anecdotally heard that 'often' the state does not play cricket when paying for stuff via eminent domain--and this doesn't even get into the issue where the state seizes things in the course of a criminal investigation and either never gives them back or only gives the stuff back after a long and expensive court battle.
I will keep my eyes open for links as they pop up in the future, for discussion.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's kind of scary when you skim over which court made the ruling, read the ruling and think "I hope they can appeal that, otherwise that would really suck," scan up to see which court it was and realize that it was the supreme court. It's almost like towns could do whatever they want in the name of public use.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. It really sucks that there's no place to appeal the supreme court decisions. The ones that suck anyway.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This issue has been watched closely in Las Vegas, where lots of people were really ticked off when the city condemned a private property owner's land in order to build a parking garage for the downtown casinos. They're not going to be happy it turned out this way. Neither am I.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This doesn't surprise me. Once you decide that the state is more important than people you can happily take whatever people own. Toss them out of their lives for a few more tax dollars.
This decision is an outgrowth of that ideology. It's why the conservatives protected the individual and the liberals protected the government. That is where their priorities lie in all matters fiscal.
posted
Seems to me it's an easy way around first amendment issues with respect to strip clubs. There are documented bad effects on the neighborhood. Buying them out for a "better" use should be pretty easy if everyone is careful.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmmm, I'm pretty certain this SC majority would lose at least one (which is all it takes) when it came to a showdown between free expression and eminent domain.
Actually, I bet they'd have soundly lost this case if it could have been shown the state was trying to target very specifically instead of creating a large plan and proceeding based on that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but that's how I'm afraid big business will use it. You just know that half of any city could now be justifiably forced out of their homes.
I don't like people on either end of the political spectrum using the limits of the laws or decency. This ruling will surely be used to do both by both.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure my town needs a KFC and I'm pretty sure it should be on my land, so I hope they buy me out soon. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sad thing is... other citizens will blindly go about giving their business to the new establisments that are built.
I doubt that many will keep up a boycott for long--even if some people try to start one.
I also don't have a lot of faith that if the people who are being pushed out were the ones who were the safe neighbors, they wouldn't do much either.
I'm not saying they deserve this--I'm just saying that when you see this going on in your community--it will take more than just the victims standing up and saying NO.
posted
What bothers me is that when you take into account how many developers and corporations receive tax incentives for this kind of development, it makes the "increased tax revenue" a bit more shaky. One could easily show a reduced tax revenue on the primary property, but possibly an overall increase in tax revenues from some sort of trickle down effect.
But that is really just speculation. I've worked on Economic Development boards and when a municipality or county starts this kind of development a lot of money can go into a project that falls through or an industrial park that never attracts enough tenants.
And there are corporations out there that fish for these opportunities to get the tax breaks, construction and infrastructure assistance and Community Development Block Grants. Some of those companies stay at the site for the minimum contracted amount of time and most never fulfill their projected employment levels. In worst cases, the companies bail at the halfway mark leaving local governments holding the bag.
I just think this is a bad, make that terrible, precedent for imminent domain. And I hate that the business environment now requires municipalities to bribe large corporations into locating within their boundaries.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
We are facing a similar situation in the town next to ours, an old, historic farmstead is in danger because the city is rezoning the area into a commercial one. I would guess that this decision spells doom for any attempt to save it.
I drive past the farm nearly every day. it's a beautiful old home and they have horses, it's especially beautiful in the morning when there's mist on the ground and the horses are grazing on the dewy grass.
This decision makes me want to cry.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about the rest of the country, but Philly's been going through a whole bunch of "Pay to Play" scandals. The idea that these people wo are basically accepting bribes can then decide to take away people's property for whatever they think is a good idea is a scary one to me.
Of course, I think the whole idea of forcibly offering "fair market value" when invoking eminent domain for legitimate cases is awful. If you can't offer people enough money to convince them to sell, then there's always third-party arbitration, whichi I think should reflect the costs that these people would need to take on to relocate to a comparable location. But I think that might just be my ideas of fairness and distrust of the government kicking in.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This bothere me so much. I have already seen several small farms we used to walk past dozed over for a condo complex or park and ride...if property can now be seized for commercial ventures, how many people will even be able to have a decent amount of land anymore?
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is way the nomination fight in the Senate is so important. When Bush nominates a Supreme Court Justice, possibly this summer, there is going to be a huge battle and major filibusters. That’s why the constitutional option is needed so that nominees can’t be filibustered. I’m really in shock that they can rewrite the constitution this way. This is in direct violation of the 5th amendment:
quote: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Key word there being PUBLIC use. Nothing to do with a private company or business development. Unreal. So…. Does this count as an activist court? They’ve certainly rewrote the law!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering a variant on public use is the justification for requiring handicap access to places like restaurants, no, that's not clearly how public use is defined.
I don't like this ruling, but its not beyond the pale.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It suddenly struck me how this is interestingly close to a communist idea where the houses belong to the state.
How is this any different? Is your house really yours if it can be knocked down for something less than vital?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could move way out in the country and still have your property seized to make way for a cell tower or feed store, whatever, if some local officials had it in for you.
We all had thought that the Soviet Union fell. Now we discover that we are living in the Soviet Union after all.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting…. Well, it’s not Bush that’s trying to bring in the socialist communist rule. He wants to bring in good judges who won’t do this sort of activism. They’ll actually read the law.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the municipal government and private businesses backing the deal didn't expect to make a profit from confiscating the property, they wouldn't want the property. That they expect to make a profit proves that they intend to pay less than fair market value.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the constitution provided protection against "unreasonable search and seizure."
What if homeowners formed a landholding co-op and incorporated? Then businesses would have to treat with the homeowners corp. as and equal entity under the law, and homeowners could have considerable leverage with local government for eminent domain legislation, since their collective taxes would probably equal or exceed the tax revenues promised by the business that wants to move in. The idea is that by incorporating together, homeowners could say, you have to seize all of us to seize any of us.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the municipal government and private businesses backing the deal didn't expect to make a profit from confiscating the property, they wouldn't want the property. That they expect to make a profit proves that they intend to pay less than fair market value.
That's not entirely true, but that'd be my starting presumption, to be overturned only with strong evidence.
After all, developers buy land at fair market value all the time and make subsequent profits. So it's not true they wouldn't want it, and it's not true they can't make a profit without paying fair market value.
But, if they have to confiscate it, it creates the very strong impression to me it that they couldn't buy it at fair market value or that just plain don't want to. Hence my thinking that it's a fair assessment absent further evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was just make a lose comparison, is all. Obviously it's not the same, just approaching a disconcerting amount of leaning in that direction.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: lots of people just don't want to sell, so that a developer can't buy at market value doesn't generally indicate what you say it does.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh good, I was hoping my local community would be able to bulldoze that church. We need more Indian Casinos and strip clubs in this town.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Dag: lots of people just don't want to sell, so that a developer can't buy at market value doesn't generally indicate what you say it does.
If someone doesn't want to sell, then the market value may be taken as infinity, or some ridiculously high number - say three million dollars for a two-room apartment - according to the strength of that conviction.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
That's the price the person wants, not the market value. Someone who wishes to sell a small, tumble-down house can set a price of ten billion dollars, and it will not be the market value, and it will not sell. Just because the government happens to be the one trying to buy it does not change that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really dislike this. I dislike it already that someone can be forced from their home to build roads, but I understand why and agree with it. This absolutely blows my mind. I see alot of possibilities for corruption with this.
And I want to add, is anyone in favor of this decision?
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find sort of strange about this is that, even though the conservative justices were in the minority opposition to the ruling, it will likely be Republicans who benefit the most from it.
Big business can raise a glass to the supreme court for removing barriers toward land development. If Haliburton or Phillip Morris wanted to expand their holdings, for instance, they can do so far more easily now than they could before.
Just a strange turn of events, really, that the liberal justices gift wrapped a ruling for the wealthy heads of business, while the conservative justices fought for the little guy.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just a strange turn of events, really, that the liberal justices gift wrapped a ruling for the wealthy heads of business, while the conservative justices fought for the little guy.
No it isn't. This is classic liberal vs. conservative stuff. The liberals on the bench were for expansion of government, and the conservatives were for contraction of government. This isn't out of line of stated ideologies.
I, for one, am not happy with this. I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said. I'll just say that developers should buy the land on the market, and if the owners say "no", then they should walk away (it happens, but not as often as I would like). The government should use the land to conduct government business (this hardly happens anymore too).
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But, if they have to confiscate it, it creates the very strong impression to me it that they couldn't buy it at fair market value or that just plain don't want to. Hence my thinking that it's a fair assessment absent further evidence.
I agree with fugu. My first assumption would be that they just plain didn't want to sell. There's a similar situation happening in Daytona Beach. Someone wants to redevelop the boardwalk with new restaurants, shops and hirise condos. The small mom&pop businesses that are already there don't want to sell because they don't want to leave and they don't want to see that happen to the boardwalk. I'm sure some of them were holding out for more money. It's in court now, but this ruling certainly isn't going to help their case.
As far as governments paying fmv, I work with FDOT a lot. The anecdotal evidence I hear from people who work there, including their appraisers, is that FDOT does generally pay fmv or more. In municipal governments, I can see a reason to screw people, but it doesn't happen as often as you think at the state level. The people who make those decisions don't get a bonus, don't get a better raise or worry about getting re-elected. Believe me, they have no problem wasting your taxpayer dollars.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
