Will court take a stand against home confiscation?
To liberals and conservatives alike, the home is a potent symbol of American freedom and well-being. Having a home is the consummate American dream, representing security and accomplishment. It is an ideal that crosses the ideological spectrum. And the specter of the government confiscating a home to give it to private developers to generate a more lucrative tax base is more than anathema, it’s a violation of the essential promise of this nation to its people.
The U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments in a case that will determine whether private ownership has any meaning left or whether we really live in a command economy, like the old Soviet Union, where government can expropriate property whenever it is profitable to do so.
In Kelo vs. City of New London, the court will decide the fate of Susette Kelo’s home and those of her neighbors in the Fort Trumbull area of New London, Conn.
Kelo’s Victorian-era home with a water view has been lovingly restored. But she is about to lose it to the New London Development Corp., a private entity that has been delegated the power of condemnation by the city. The NLDC wants Kelo’s home, along with 14 others, in order to put together a 90-acre parcel for new development, including office space, a waterfront hotel and conference center and other uses. The city claims it can do this because economic redevelopment will benefit the public by bringing more tax revenue and jobs to the city. The homeowners say that they have invested their lives and treasure in their homes and are not interested in moving and shouldn’t be forced to.
As horrible as this is and as wrong as it is – - it will be very difficult for the “Supremes” to be able to rule on the side of the homeowners. This just goes to show that eminent domain is little more than legal stealing and owning a piece of the American dream is only good until land developers invade with a nightmare.
I think I will study the story a bit more to see what is up with this. I have seen where homeowners are offered a great deal for their homes for this very type of thing. Most take the money but there is always one or two that hold out. Those holding out ultimately lose because the building goes up around them and their property is basically worthless. At that point they sell it at a loss.
I think the city of NEW LONDON should be forbiden from taking anyones private property just becuase its crooked city council wants to make a profit with new developments and buisnesses and if they cant abide by the US constitution then they all should step down and lets end ENTIMATE DOMAIN:mad:
people should not be forced out of the homes they own and off of the land they have bought. Yes, some do take the money – - but for developers to want to put up shops and condos and kicks families out – - there is something so very wrong with that
3- I agree with that Reilly. I want to research this though to see if there is any eveidence that these plots had been marked for development at this time. We have had situations like this here. The state had marked a certain area for highway. the land had been tagged. I want to say it dated back 23 years. The homeowners were told 23 years ago, and everytime the property/home was sold the potential buyer can look to see if the property or area is slated for development. If this is the case, then you had fair warning. But if I take this at face value, these homeowners have a good case and should have no problem winning in court.
One more argument for the 2nd Amendment.
In November 2000, however, the city invoked eminent domain – a government right to seize property for public use – and sent out condemnation notices to owners refusing to sell. The city planned to pay the owners fair market value, take possession of the buildings and tear them down
At issue is the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause:
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 offense 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.
But in this case, it isn’t being taken “for public use.” It’s being taken from one private party, and it’s being given (or sold) to another private party on the grounds that “boosting tax revenue” constitutes “public use.” No it doesn’t. It constitutes enriching the government coffers.
In the parlance of “slippery slopes,” eminent domain was first abused back in the 50′s when “urban renewal” was big. The case of Berman v. Parker was the first suit. It challenged the The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945. The Supreme Court found:
The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 is constitutional, as applied to the taking of appellants’ building and land (used solely for commercial purposes) under the power of eminent domain, pursuant to a comprehensive plan prepared by an administrative agency for the redevelopment of a large area of the District of Columbia so as to eliminate and prevent slum and substandard housing conditions – even though such property may later be sold or leased to other private interests subject to conditions designed to accomplish these purposes.
(a) The power of Congress over the District of Columbia includes all the legislative powers which a state may exercise over its affairs.
(b) Subject to specific constitutional limitations, the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation enacted in the exercise of the police power; and this principle admits of no exception merely because the power of eminent domain is involved.
(c) This Court does not sit to determine whether or not a particular housing project is desirable.
(d) If Congress decides that the Nation’s Capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.
(e) Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear.
(f) Once the public purpose has been established, the means of executing the project are for Congress and Congress alone to determine.
(g) This Court cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of a community redevelopment project; and it is not beyond the power of Congress to utilize an agency of private enterprise for this purpose or to authorize the taking of private property and its resale or lease to the same or other private parties as part of such a project.
(h) It is not beyond the power of Congress or its authorized agencies to attack the problem of the blighted parts of the community on an area rather than on a structure-by-structure basis. Redevelopment of an entire area under a balanced integrated plan so as to include not only new homes but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers is plainly relevant to the maintenance of the desired housing standards and therefore within congressional power.
(i) The standards contained in the Act are sufficiently definite to sustain the delegation of authority to administrative agencies to execute the plan to eliminate not only slums but also the blighted areas that tend to produce slums.
(j) Once the public purpose is established, the amount and character of the land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislature.
(k) If the Redevelopment Agency considers it necessary in carrying out a redevelopment project to take full title to the land, as distinguished from the objectionable buildings located thereon, it may do so.
(l) The rights of these property owners are satisfied when they receive the just compensation which the Fifth Amendment exacts as the price of the taking.
After reading the history, I feel this can be likened to;
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff in 1984, in which the State of Hawaii used eminent domain to take large lots of land from their private owners, then break up those lots and sell the pieces to the tenants living on them. But because the original owner got “just compensation,” this theft was made legal.
Interesting case Reilly. I will follow it.
I have a friend in neighboring Uncasville, CT. CT Democrats don’t believe in individual rights. Of course no one has tracked developer “contributions” to New London politicians and there in no CT law forbidding these same politicians, lawyers, and city aparachiks from taking jobs with the developers or companies benefitting fromt the Eminent Domain takings.
The Supreme Court should slap down New London, and the citizens of New London should discover tarring and feathering of city leaders once again.
I’m surprised (well, not really) and kind of heartened by Reilly and peejz’s response to this. I agree that this represents a bad precedent, and that citizens should not be thrown out of their homes to serve the interests of private gain, even if it does increase the tax base.
On cases like this, Republican/Democrat distinctions can be useless – I think, put in crudely simple terms, response to this is based on class identity.
There is nothing more American than owning your own piece of land. When politicians use eminent domain for a interstate etc. I can ALMOST see it. However, if they are simply taking land, and redistributing it for others, breaking it up in lots and selling it, theses people should be tried for abusing their office and abusing the trust of the public by violating the Constitution.
Time to decalir ENTAMTE DOMAIN as unconstitutinal and throw it out these greedy city officials only want to throw people out so they can build condos and casinos its time for them to answer to the words of the 5th amendment:cool:
Now you know why it is important to support the Libertarian Party. This is only the most public incident. There have been several others, that since the domain wasn’t so fancy didn’t get the publicity this one has.
We have been against this for years, but I guess it doesn’t count until your own ox gets gored.