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.
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.