From FoxNews:
A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property 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.
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he 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,” Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
“It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area,” he said.
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.
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
“It’s a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,” said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. “I won’t be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.”
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: “A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result.”
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.”…
So if Private Party A wants to put something where Private Party B has something else, whichever one will pay more taxes to the government has the right to that property. That’s how eminent domain now works. Eminent domain no longer means roads, school, governmental buildings, etc. It now means Best Buy headquarters, apartment buildings, private health clubs, and whatever the person with more money wants. I cringe thinking about what Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and the others who formed this great country would think of this ruling.
50, lady shiloh running eagle, the 5 SC votes gutting the 5th amendment are the Liberal/Progressives on the court. You want protections from the government, put more conservatives on the court like Thomas and Scalia.
pcd
i am not asking for any protection from the government. i am asking the government to leave the Constitutional protections in place.
how is the 5th amend being gutted?
The takings clause was gutted by the SC decision on eminent domain, and all the Liberals voted for the gov’t being able to take your home or business for government enrichment, ie. supposedly higher tax revinues.
52, also lady shiloh running eagle, the Bill of Rights, first 12 amendments to the Constitution were all to limit government power. If you want those amendments left alone to protect your rights, then you ARE asking for protection from the government. Maybe your name sould be changed to Running Dummy.
52 – Eminent domain is part of the 5th Amendment
53 – If you drop the partisan glasses you’d notice that most liberals seem awfully pissed about this too…
governments come & go with varying degrees of competency. i don’t place my faith in governments – i place my faith in the Constitution.
i am also pissed about it.
Well, for once I agree with shitloh.
but how does that 2nd amendment fare with your buddies????
Mr. ACLU???
56, then learn the Constitution, dummy. There is more to the 5th Amendment than not incriminating yourself.
55, Astro, the Liberal/Progressives want more judges on the SC like the 5 that voted to nullify the 5th Amendment. That is faux outrage to me. If they were truly consistent, they’d be demanding the 5 resign/retire, but they’ve been silent on that.
PCD.
you should know by now, the liberals don’t believe in constitutional democracy..they believe in liberal judicial fiat.
60, Mike, I think lady shiloh running eagle dummy has shown how truly stupid he is. Doesn’t know the 5th Amendment, the then says he isn’t seeking protection from the government when the freaking SC decision we are talking about is all about being protected from the government taking your possessions. What an addled, ignorant, self centered FOOL!
I am really upset with our Supreme (is it?) court ruling on property ownership. Nobody but nobody has the right to take away the land that you own unless there is some easily understood reason –like a hi-way or something. To allow an opening for some big money operation to work an angle and wrangle a way to take someone’s property is very very wrong and is a power play by the rich and “don’t give a —- powerful”. A very dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court is asking for a serious uprising in this country by threatening to take property away from the everyday common working people. It is about time that we at least put term limits on the Supreme court. They need to rethink this one.
Is America for sale?
Before they force me to burn my copy of the Constitution, I shall repeat this excerpt from the Fifth Amendment:
“No person shall … be deprived of … property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Anything to the contrary is owed no respect….
UNLESS We use their decision to confiscate the “5″ Justices’ private homes to build [fill in your favorite motel]. I further say we compensate them $1 each. No that sounds like “just” to me. [See, maybe money does have influence.]
My father, who is a real estate pro, just told me about this. In an internet search, this is the only site that I came across that broached the subject of eminent domain. Are any public branches opposing this or trying to overthrow the decision? This is definately against the constitution!! It’s one thing to lose your home to a highway project, but to lose your home to a Dollar General is another. STUPID DECISIONS BY STUPID PEOPLE, I’D SAY!