Eminent domain fought

[Rose Siding]

NEW LONDON (AP) — Fifteen houses are all that remain of Fort Trumbull, a once vibrant immigrant neighborhood flattened into expanses of rutted grass and gravel.

The homes stand in defiance of New London's plan to pave the way for a riverfront hotel and convention center, offices and upscale condominiums.

Refusing the city's efforts to get them to leave, seven families are going before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow, arguing that the city has no right to take their private property solely for economic development. The rebellious homeowners include an elderly Italian immigrant, a mechanic and a former deli owner.
...
The Fifth Amendment allows governments to take private property for "public use."
But Fort Trumbull is not besieged by blight, poverty or crime, and New London is not building a highway or government building. The residents' appeal asks whether "public use" allows governments to seize unblighted taxpayer property solely to encourage private development.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050221-123841-2369r.htm

[7th_Sephiroth]

1. if SCOTUS rules for the goverment

should an attempt be made to overthrow?

[renaissanceguy]

12. There should be outrage if they do.

It is their job to protect our constitutional rights.

Let's remember something: They have the power because WE GRANT them the power. We are not bound to them if we, collectively, take that power away from them and form a new government.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14744291

[Straight Shooter]

2. Maybe Chertoff can find a way under the guise of homeland security

Eminent domain is a pathetic excuse in this situation. I wish them the best of luck.

[bleedingheart]

3. Wonder what the freeps think....it used to be that conservatives

hated when the government seized property but now that they are in bed with the corporatists....that seems to have changed.

[7th_Sephiroth]

8. actually the freepers seem verry liberal on a few issues

Drugs and less goverment namely

[MisterP]

15. it's only for environmental regulation that they whine--

and as long as it's their play ranches they can't turn into waste dumps or pig farms or pave the marshes

[SnoopDog]

4. This is what the 5th amendment is all about...

Our founding fathers insured that the government could not take your property unless it was for public use - this is what the Fifth Amendment protects.

New London wants to take property away from home owners so they can put up a hotel and for 'private' enterprises. This is not public use. If so, I should be able to walk in that hotel and go to a room for free - since it must be 'public use'.

This is our Constitution everybody. There can be no exceptions to enforcing our rights. If this is allowed, for one, the Courts have violated our Constitution. Second , this would mean that a city/county/state government can walk in and take you property for what ever cause.

I urge you all to write/email your Congressmen/women.

Our Constitution is the way of our land. To violate the Constitution is an overthrow of our government.

[TahitiNut]

5. How dare they stand in the way of corporate profits?

Heaven forbid that "one dollar, one vote" be eroded by something as trivial as residential use by the hoi polloi.

[RC]

6. This sounds similar to the way gwbu$h got his stadium

in Texas.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html

1991

January: Arlington citizens, by a 2-to-1 margin, approve public funds for the new $191 million ballpark. Two weeks before the vote, federal regulators dismiss their lawsuit against Greene after he pays a $40,000 penalty.

April: The Rangers shepherd through the Texas legislature a bill that creates the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA), a quasi-governmental entity that is given the power of eminent domain. Shortly after the bill is signed by new governor Ann Richards, 13 acres of private property are seized for the Rangers' new ballpark, later prompting two lawsuits.

[Kimber Scott]

7. It's our new ownership society

where the corporations own everything.

[hollowdweller]

9. This could be a very strong issue for the Democrats to champion, being

against stuff like this. Maybe if Dean gets the party out of the pocket of corporations the dems can make some political hay by at least introducing a bill to protect people from this.

We nearly lost our farm to a proposed airport that the state wanted to build despite our other airports only marginally being profitable. Luckily the FAA decided it wasn't viable but they almost got it thru.

If they get off the coroporate teat, the dems could really run with these corporate/gov't deals just like the GOP used the "welfare queens" and "pork Barrel" stuff against the entrenched Democratic majority back in the 80's and 90's.

[GarySeven]

11. I agree - FORCE the Republicans to come out in favor

If the Democrats championed these residents' case, the Republicans would have to react; and since they are unprincipaled people who put ideology above all else, they would HAVE to take the opposite position to the one we take - in FAVOR of the corporations and AGAINST the residents. This will help split the ever widening fissure between the libertarians in the party and the souless conservatives.

[Jack The Tab]

10. FREE MARKET FREE MARKET FREE MARKET!!!!!

Isn't that what the corporatists and pugs shout about everything.

How about this, you pay the homeowners exactly what they want as opposed to what some county auditor determines what the property is worth in 1980.

These people I'm sure would move if offered 4 times the current rate for their property and I believe this is exactly the spirit of capitalism and private development these moguls espouse to all of us.

[Rose Siding]

13. Knight Ridder has a few more more details on this story

Supreme Court to consider government's powers of eminent domain

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/krwashbureau/20050221/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_scotus_wa

snip>
At issue is a case from New London, Conn., where the city condemned a stable working-class neighborhood, which has waterfront views of the Thames River, to allow a private developer to build a swank, upper-class haven with high-priced houses and affluent commercial properties.

The motive for New London was more taxes and more jobs. But the price for Susette Kelo and the others in the neighborhood includes losing the homes they've inhabited for decades and, they say, their property rights.

Kelo says if the city condemns her property it will violate the Constitution's protection against unjust property seizure. If the court agrees with her, it will stop New London's development immediately - and cast doubt over similar projects around the country.

Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents Kelo and several of her neighbors, sees it as a dispute that pits the affluent against those who aren't.

[Hosnon]

14. This is cutting edge property law - my professor told us

to watch out for this. I hope that "public use" is interpreted conservatively.