The Supreme Court has just released an opinion ruling that local governments may seize private residences and property for local economic development.
* * *
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
That’s right. Your home is in an area where some private developer wants to build a shopping mall? Too bad.
Justice Stevens’ majority opinion was joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
O’Connor (joined by Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) wrote the dissenting opinion arguing that
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
“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.”
I do not know what your opinion may be on this, but I find it deeply disturbing to think that a local government can take my property (oh sure, they will pay me for it, and I’m sure I’ll get paid what it’s worth) and let a developer build something on it. Perhaps, someday, my 40 acre property will be taken from me so that a real estate developer can build a subdivision on it! I’m thrilled!
Anyway, as Justice O’Conner implied, the wealthy people won’t have their homes taken away.
I never thought I would agree with Scalia and Thomas (I have agreed with Rehnquist at times).
Schools, roads, parks are one thing. This is something else entirely. Caveat — I have not read the entire opinion, so there may be something in there which will allieve my concern. But I just don’t get a good feeling from this. Or am I just completely wrong about the whole thing? (Perhaps agreeing with Scalia and Thomas should be a clue for me to re-evaluate….)
I didn’t believe I would EVER agree with Scalia and his cabal of neanderthals on the court, but I strongly disagree with this decision and the reasoning behind it. I see it as a license for corrupt politicians and wealthy developers to grab every valuable piece of real estate they can. Ordinary people will be moved into ghettos while the wealthy enjoy the great views, the waterfront townhouses, the parks, the beaches, and the good air. Ordinary people will get to live next to the sewage treatment plant, the airport, the dumps, and the swamps. Welcome to Amerika, sucker!
about seeing this on a news magazine type show over a year ago. These are not derelict houses; they are lovely, well-maintained houses that just happen to have a great view. In particular, they interviewed an elderly couple who have lived in their house for 40 years. If the value of the land — as it will be developed — were taken into account, the couple should receive a million dollars for their lot. But, instead, they are being offered something like $70K so that others may make a fortune.
I do not like this ruling at. all. Does this mean that the government actually owns everything and we’re all just paying for leases? I predict massive land grabs by developers with assistance from compliant local governments. And, a lot of local councilmen getting kick-backs. The Supremes have just legalized corruption on a grand scale.
You are correct. A Google search revealed the Institute for Justice (a libertarian public interest law firm that represented the Kelos in this case) has the background. The Kelos restored a home located on the Thames River.
we must have both submitted diaries at the same time on this subject.
Great minds and all that 😀
and the court liberals just made a million more of them.
Perhaps the best course of action is for Dems to contact their State-level Democratic Representatives, Senators, Governors and push for State laws and State Constitutional reforms. In this way, we can make it a Dem issue, and show how the Dems are fighting for the “little guy.”
I agree with Antonin Scalia. I’ve said it. Now, I must go wash my mouth out with soap.
that you can’t judge a judge based on a few rulings.
Or, on the other hand, even a broken clock is correct twice a day…