F@#*ed Up Supreme Court Ruling (NRR)
funky16corners
7,175 Posts
How fucked up is this....Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize HomesBy William BraniginWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, June 23, 2005; 12:30 PMThe Supreme Court today effectively expanded the right of local governments to seize private property under eminent domain, ruling that people's homes and businesses -- even those not considered blighted -- can be taken against their will for private development if the seizure serves a broadly defined "public use."In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the ability of New London, Conn., to seize people's homes to make way for an office, residential and retail complex supporting a new $300 million research facility of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company. The city had argued that the project served a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it would increase tax revenues, create jobs and improve the local economy.A group of homeowners in New London's Fort Trumbull area had fought the city's attempt to impose eminent domain, arguing that their property could be seized only to serve a clear public use such as building roads or schools or to eliminate blight. The homeowners, some of whom had lived in their house for decades, also argued that the public would benefit from the proposed project only if it turned out to be successful, making the "public use" requirement subject to the eventual performance of the private business venture.The Fifth Amendment also requires "just compensation" for the owners, but that was not an issue in the case decided today because the homeowners did not want to give up their property at any price.Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the case turned on the question of whether New London's development plan served a "public purpose." He added, "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."New London officials "were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference," Stevens wrote. "The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs and increased tax revenue."Stevens added that "because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment."He was joined in that view by justices Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.Dissenting were justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as well as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.In a strongly worded dissenting opinion, O'Connor wrote that the majority's decision overturns a long-held principle that eminent domain cannot be used simply to transfer property from one private owner to another."Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power," she wrote. "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded -- i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public -- in the process."The effect of the decision, O'Connor said, "is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property -- and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."The ruling has broad potential implications nationwide, giving cities broader authority to condemn homes and businesses to make way for more lucrative developments.
Comments
This does not bother me much. The question is which is happening here; is the "public purpose" being served or, is "property simpley being transfered from one private owner to another".
What I think is fucked up is the local goverment thinking that new retail development is more important than affordable housing. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Dan
this is the first time that i know of that i can say that i agree with scalia and thomas....
It's a comedy, and a damn good one at that, but the basic premise is that a family is told their house is being taken for airport expansion. They take it to court and... well, rent the movie to find out.
DJ Ferrari
exactly, if they are the voices of reason on this, wtf, ya know? the whole decision seems kind of odd from that perspective, i have come to expect the conservative justices to make the big business friendly moves, but here primarily the more liberal members of the court just threw poor propert owners a giant f u.
whoot whoot, the corporate sponsored gentrification train coming soon to a "blighted" neighborhood near you.
Does madcap tomfoolery and/or wacky hi-jinks ensue?
That is not what they just ruled... UNfortunately in the specific case that is exactly what they are doing. Taking a "distressed" piece of property away via eminent domain to resell it to a redevelopment company... Its not being taken to be used as a Public Domain project (ie. highway, park, train system, etc.)
The really fucked up thing is that they seem to be saying that the property doesn't need to be "distressed" anymore. The city just needs to prove things will be "better" under the new situation. Bottom line being, if Walmart wants your neighborhood, you (and your house, and your neighbor's house) are fucked.
"we're taking your land?"
"what right?"
"we're rich."
"oh"
wtf indeed. This is sick. It also clears the way for Ratner to kick a whole section of Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, out of their homes (I'm guessing at 1985 prices) to build a private development... a new home for the Nets.
You could say hilarity ensues. The main character is a cross between Clark Griswald and Lloyd Christmas.
Wrong, the rule is/was actually "One persons property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even though compensation be paid"
If you read the dissent, it cites Hawiaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229. In Midkiff, the government took private property from 72 private landowners on the island of Oahu and redistributed it to private individuals because the oligopoly in land ownership threatened to injure the public tranquility and welfare of the island.
The threat of this ruling is that it widens the door on "public purpose" and gives increasing weight to corporate interests over private property rights. It moves dangerously close to changing to rule from "public purpose" to "greater good." If that happens, watch out. Nothing will be safe from corporate taking.
Corperations are taking over. Their head dictator is in charge.
They are making a mint off the war while poor people are losing their lives.
GM is trying to blame thier woes on having to provide decent health care!!! WTF!!!!!!! Am I the only one freaking everytime this is mentioned?
A military contractor just bought a house from a senator for $700,000 more than it was worth. The contractor instantly turned around and sold the house and took a $700,000 loss on it. Gee was that a pay off?????? Expect that to get lost in the shuffle.
People are paying insane abouts of money for gas while rich (at home and abroad) rake in the dough off of it. One station owner said he wasn't going to participate in the gouging and refused to raise his prices. Instantly he was threated by the big companies that they would shut him down and he better go along with the program.
Justification????? Getting rich!!!!! Is it a good reason? Only if your a rich sack of shit that doesn't care about anyone but yourself.
The pension issue is a real problem in the US. Corporations promise benefit rates based on employee pool numbers, expected retirement ages and general life expectency rates. When a company's employee pool contracts like GMs has done and expected age for death increases the math suddenly looks really bad,
This is a trend that will continue until all the Baby Boomers die.
When they go into mass retirement in 10-15 years, we are looking at several decades of devastation and social unrest as our generation undertakes the impossible social burdon of supporting our parents' excessive expectations.
Link please. Did this come out yesterday in the Abernoff hearings?
To heck with your parents. You fools will be supporting me!
For real people my age are likely to be living to 90 and 100 years. GM has an employee who worked for them for 38 years and has been collecting his pension for 42. (or some #s close to that.)
The obvious, but unpopular solution is to raise the retirement age to 80, and soon.
The wife and I could retire right now and life comfortably on SS for 6 weeks.
Dan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4713050
This seems to be a seperate story. Just a blurb on the web page. The radio version was more informative. The defence contractor (from Washington DC) claimed that his company was looking into expanding into Califorinia where the house was. (yea right) Of course before the ink could dry on the house sale the company decided they weren't going to expand and sold the house. Nothing fishy there!
Can't remember where but I saw a funny comedy bit on this the other day.
People are going to be living until 130 before long. Yes, cuz being 90 is so great you want to feel like that for another 40 years!
not linked to the hearings. Best coverage I've found of it is at Marshall's blog:
Talking Points Memo
Also, all things soulstrut related, the same defense contractor bought Rep. Duke Cunningham (not a senator, a Calif. congressman) a YACHT!!!!!! which he lives on in Maryland. The contractor tried to say that Duke was just borrowing it, but the yacht was named the "Duke Stir"
there's more... just read back. It's beyond sordid.
same person, cunningham was the congressman who's home was bought and who "rents" the yacht that is named after him. mzm (the mil contractor) also forced their employees to write checks to republican campaigns, and so on and so on. the story is like an onion, every layer you peel back reveals more corruption and back door deals. these fuckers are basically stealing everything they can get there hands on as fast as they can. meanwhile on the actual floor of congress they debate a constitutional ammendment on burning the flag -- no more pressing issues to deal with. i hope we all remember this (and who) when america is a third world shithole dictatorship, cuz we're headed that way and fast.