Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

[miir]

Is this for real?

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development

[Cartalas]

Is this for real?

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development

Very Disturbing if they dont reimburse the land owner fair market value, Also the Zoning Comish. should be held accountable for bad management.

[Chmee]

Blech, not terribly suprised that they ruled that way but still very annoying nonetheless.

[Sirensa]

Very Disturbing if they dont reimburse the land owner fair market value, Also the Zoning Comish. should be held accountable for bad management.

They are required to pay the owner "just compensation" which has been defined to mean fair market value at the time the property was taken.

All this is saying is that in this instance - the private economic development of an office complex constitutues public use. And the Court has always defined public use extremely broadly - pretty much as long as the use is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.

[Neost]

Just another example of the government protecting business over inidividual citizens.

Our politicians (all of them, liberal or conservative) pay lip service to individual rights or protection of our citizenry but every damn one of them kowtow to business because those guys can get you re-elected and if you do enough for them when finally voted out of office you have something to fall back on.

I can't wait until they run into the guy that will sit on his front porch with a shotgun and dare anyone to come raze his home, court order or not.

[Ashur]

Eminent domain to take land for a municipality to develop for private businesses is a clear abuse of the spirit of the law, which was to facilitate public works.

The issue of "fair compensation" aside - that's often another abuse entirely as there are many cases where "fair compensation" doesn't allow someone to relocate thier homestead in a reasonable manner.

I am amazed and very disappointed the Courts took the stance. That broad definition needs tightened, not loosened.

[Winnow]

I can see some instances to do it. There are some real rat traps in downtown areas inhabited by people that have no desire to upkeep their homes or improve.

Ghetto style isn't the best way to promote a crime free downtown area. There are also real needs for freeways to be built in certain areas but that's public stuff not private.

This can be too easily abused though.

[Aabidano]

I'm fairly surprised by this. I heard some of the testimoney a while back and didn't think it'd get anyplace.

This is not what was intended in any way IMO.

[Voronwë]

because one private interest can make more money with real estate than a private landowner gives them the right to use "emminent domain".

Sandra O'Connor's dissenting opinion i think sums it up nicely:

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Recourse for us is to have local legislation that prevents it.

[Homercles]

hold on a second. are you telling me the conservative members of the supreme court voted against this? And here I thought conservatives were in the back pockets of big business? Looks like theyre trying to protect the little guy in this case.

This is a bad decision. Things are corrupt enough as they are. This only gives more buying power to Big Business. Politicians will be lining there pockets with even more green thanks to this decision.

[Voronwë]

the difference between the conservatives on the court and the conservatives in congress, is the ones on the court actually are conservative.

[Ashur]

I can see some instances to do it. There are some real rat traps in downtown areas inhabited by people that have no desire to upkeep their homes or improve.

Ghetto style isn't the best way to promote a crime free downtown area. There are also real needs for freeways to be built in certain areas but that's public stuff not private.

This can be too easily abused though.

If a municipality thinks they can improve an area by kicking people out, the most logical recourse would be to offer them enough money for the property (or incent the developer to do so) that it makes sense for them to take the offer. Saying "We are siezing your property so we can tear down your house for an office park/luxury codos etc and we think it's worth about $80K, here's the check, be out by next Thursday" is NOT the answer.

There's enough problems with the original intent "We're putting in a freeway and it really really needs to use some or all of your property." which still has the problem of "fair compensation" oftimes being somewhat less than fair.

If you buy land and or a house, there's a reasonable expectation that it's yours. This puts a big "MAYBE" on every deed.

[Voronwë]

its one thing to say it is in a city's interest to be able to use "immenent domain" to help change slums around, or a blighted area of town.

This case was not about a slum that Pfizer wanted to buy to build on. This was a normal neighborhood.

that is very different than something like an "urban renewal" campaign.