Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes for Private Developments - New

[Guest guest]

" Zepp " <zepp

Thu, 23 Jun 2005 07:52:28 -0700

[Zepps_News] Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes for

Private Developments - New

 

 

 

 

http://news./s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property

 

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.

 

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 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

 

 

--