Supreme Court will determine when cities may seize private land

[seemslikeadream]

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

BY HOPE YEN
ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide when governments may seize people's homes and businesses for economic development projects, a key question as cash-strapped cities seek ways to generate tax revenue.

At issue is the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain, provided the owner is given "just compensation" and the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to budge, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property.

They argued the taking would be proper only if it served to revitalize slums or blighted areas dangerous to the public
more
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm498_20040928.htm

[denverbill]

1. Answer: When the Bush family needs to make some money.

Yes, let's condemn half the city and declare it's needed to build a ballpark, then build office buildings, restaurants, and apartments all around the ballpark and pocket the profits.

[aquart]

2. Private property ain't sacred when a Bush wants it.

A Bush or a well-connected friend.

This has been brewing since Bush swiped the land for that stadium.

What a terrible dilemna for this court. Either the gov't can confiscate whenever it feels like it, or it can't. Do they want to give a future antagonistic administration the right to destroy them at will? But can they bear to shut down such a glorious profit center?

What to do? What to do?

[GainesT1958]

3. The Court already established a "Takings" standard...

In the landmark "Dolan v. City of Antelope, Oregon", in 1994. In the New London case, it sounds like the plaintiffs are actually giving the city (the defendant) a benefit of the doubt by using the official HUD National Objective of "eliminating slum and blight conditions"--but of course, claiming their homes don't nearly fall under those conditions, nor that standard. Hence they are charging New London with a "taking" of their property under the Fifth Amendment. It's the "Fifth's" leser-known protection.

As a planner, on the Dolan case I sided--unsuccessfully, unfortunately--with the City of Antelope to allow it to build a creekside bike path. Here, I'd go with the homeowners. Why can't the City of New London swing a deal with a waterfront warehouse or shipping company owner to trade THEIR land for the development the City wants? They can find a way to do that and still do their development successfully--if they'd only make an honest effort, and not push out long-standing property owners!x(

B-)