Gunco Forums banner

Eminent Domain Before SCOTUS

1K views 10 replies 8 participants last post by  Custer 
#1 ·
Justices ask homeowners: 'Why us?'
Waterbury Republican-American ^ | February 23, 2005 | Lauren Etter

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Tuesday toward a group of New London, Conn. homeowners fighting to keep their land. But the justices seemed equally skeptical of their own power to keep the city from seizing property to create an upscale development.

It's the first major case on eminent domain, the power of the government to condemn property for redevelopment, to reach the high court in years.

Justice Antonin Scalia was the most vocal member of the court during the arguments. He said a Connecticut developer is "taking property from someone who does not want to sell it."

The justices fired relentless questions at a lawyer representing the New London residents about why he thought the court should be involved in this dispute and how he would have them distinguish between proper and improper property seizures.

In 2000, the private, nonprofit New London Development Corporation notified Susette Kelo and Matthew Dery, among others, they had to sell their homes within four months because they were in the way of a large development project.

Kelo and Dery refused, but NLDC said the request was justified because the neighborhood is economically depressed, and a proposed new development would bring increased tax revenue and attract jobs.

But "every home and church would produce more tax revenue if it were a Costco or a private development," said Scott Bullock, Kelo's attorney, who argued before the court.

Kelo and Dery argued in their brief that if nothing more than increased tax revenue or job growth is required to constitute a public use, then "there is scarcely any private use or business for which the power of eminent domain could not be used."

Wesley Horton, who appeared before the high court on behalf of the City of New London, said the few people who don't want to sell their land are making the whole community suffer.

"We're talking about an economically depressed community," he said at a news conference after the arguments, noting that "hold-outs" like the Kelos or Derys slow down economic development and force developers to build in the suburbs, contributing to urban sprawl.

Horton also said places like the World Trade Center would never have been built had it not been for some people sacrificing their land for the greater public good.

But the justices had different concerns.

"Are you saying the government could take (land) from 'A' and give to 'B' if 'B' is richer?" Scalia asked incredulously.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to side with Scalia.

"For example, if there is a Motel 6 and the city wants a Ritz Carlton, is that OK?" Ginsburg asked.

Horton said taking land from one person and giving it to another without public benefit is not a sufficient justification for public use. But he said higher taxes are sufficient to generate a greater public good that will trickle throughout the entire community.

While Horton said his clients are concerned for the welfare of those who don't want to sell land, there comes a point when the community needs to move forward.

"It's obviously very sad," he said after his court appearance. "But you have to remember that (the same thing happens) with roads and railroads."

Bullock, however, said his clients aren't against economic development.

"We think the Supreme Court understands. What we are talking about here is taking people's homes and businesses. We are here to protect the Kelos and the Derys of the world, not to prevent development."

A decision is not expected for several months.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
i hope the Supreme's side with the land owners, enough is enough, this isn't some 'needed' road or a dam, this is about a private developer wanting to make the $$$

it's time to say NO
 
#3 ·
Most Cities have been in the "Real Estate Business" for years.Where I live if someone that has good ties with the City wants your property.........goodby.
 
#4 ·
I agree. The Constitution says "public use" not "better use" or "public purpose".

The Fifth Amendment is a restriction of government power, not a grant of power:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
#7 ·
I like these comments:

"Are you saying the government could take (land) from 'A' and give to 'B' if 'B' is richer?" Scalia asked incredulously.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to side with Scalia.

"For example, if there is a Motel 6 and the city wants a Ritz Carlton, is that OK?" Ginsburg asked.


I hope the justices keep on that track. Otherwise anyone's property could eventually be condemned because some developer would like it to build a mansion for some rich person simply because of a nice view or access to a town or waterway.
 
#8 ·
If the court rules against the homeowners, we lefties will be proven correct that the US government is little more than a stooge for corporate interests.

Sometimes we like to be proven wrong, though.

This is disgusting.
 
#11 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
If the court rules against the homeowners, we lefties will be proven correct that the US government is little more than a stooge for corporate interests.

Sometimes we like to be proven wrong, though.

This is disgusting.
These cases involve local and state government and raise the issue if that part of the 5th amendment applies to the states. Incorporation don't ya know.

The Fed's started this stooge process to accomodate the lefties. Remember the TVA project in the 30's? At least FDR had the decency to set it up as a quasi governmental agency.

How soon we forget.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top