home

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

The Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling today, allowing cities to appropriate private homes:

Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans. The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights.

The more liberal members of the court, along with Justice Anthony Kennedy, voted to allow the seizures:

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

Personally, I think it's a lousy decision and Government should keep its hands off our property the same way it should keep its laws off our bodies.

Update: Glenn Reynolds has these thoughts over on his MSNBC weblog.

< Thursday Open Thread | White House Rejects Call for Karl Rove Apology >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    I get the feeling that this isn't the last we're going to hear about this. It seems to cross party lines as well as the L/R divide and will possibly be an interesting and transformative thing for small "l" libertarians from both sides. This was a really, really awful decision but at least it left the final decision up to localities and that may spur more interest into local politics. And hopefully not just the developers interest.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#2)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    This is an attack on the people of this country by its so call-court system, the high court thinks nothing of the people of this nation, but it will work into total corruption of local and state government which will do all it can to do you! out of your home. didn't we the people have a Revolution over this kind of thing? you know the one back in 1776?..do any of you know about that? I say Revolt against this evil and corruption, you will understand what i am saying someday, watch CNN And Fox boys on this outrage against you! and do some research on what is coming next. brothers and sisters fight back against bush and business anyway you can.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#3)
    by drshaffer on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    I know this looks like a bad decision. However, the really scary right wing group Constitution in Exile backed this case. Con Law Prof Epstein from univ. of Chicago is the brains behind that group and is highly regarded by Scalia. This group needed wins in the Raich case, the Lindel case and this Kelo case in order to advance their agenda. Which, by the way, is the privatization of nearly everything. The undermining of the EPA, OSHA, Soc. Security and minimum wage laws. Sorry, but I have to disagree with folks on this one!

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#4)
    by Joe Bob on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    What this basically means is that anyone who is richer than you and has a "better" use for your property can seek to have it taken from you (at 'fair market value' of course) and given to them. I hope people realize that this is not something only being applied in so-called blighted areas. Middle-class homeowners and people running profitable businesses are being forced to sell their land so municipalities can turn it over to developers and big business. In my own hometown there was a case a few years ago where over 100 homes and several viable businesses were taken through eminent domain in order for Best Buy to build their corporate headquarters on the site. The city council made a case that the existing properties were 'blighted' though they certainly were not, by any common sense definition of the word. Now, not even that pretext will be necessary. This is going to be one more tool wealthy interests will be able to use to bully local governments and sweep small property owners out of their way.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Note: the dissenters were Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, and O'Connor. With one more conservative justice, this decision would have been quite different. Liberalism - it's no longer about freedom. It's now about big government. Anyone thinking of changing sides yet?

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Fred Dawes- "and do some research on what is coming next." Yes, Fred, a little History 101 would be helpful in understanding what is really going on here. This decision is bad enough. Putting it into context with other recent policies shows a trend I am disturbed by. Massive privatization=?

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#12)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Terrible decision. Janice Rogers Brown wouldn't have voted so perversely. Bush's nominees are looking better all the time.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    The Supreme Court's "takings" clause case was not the only erroneous ruling to come from the (out of touch with reality) Court today. In Mayle v. Felix, the Supreme Court imposed a timeliness rule on amended petitions in habeas cases that had no textual basis whatsoever in the federal habeas statutes. The Court's decision will guarantee that hundreds of habeas petitioners will receive no merits review of their federal constitutional claims that were otherwise procedurally viable (claims that are exhausted and not procedurally defaulted). The Supreme Court has imposed several draconian timeliness rulings on habeas petitioners just this year: Mayle v. Felix; Dodd v. United States; Pace v. Deguilarmo; and Johnson v. United States. These decisions will ensure that dozens of people will be executed for procedural technicalities that occurred in their habeas cases several years ago. The worst part is that these cases are so complex that the general public will never be able to understand that people will be executed and/or detained in unconstitutional confinement due to the retroactive application of these procedural technicalities.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    The New London Development Corp. is planning to build a conference center, hotel complex, offices, condominiums, and, sometime in the future, an aquarium on this land. That spells low-wage service jobs. Of course, the city will gain much needed revenues. With the big cuts in federal funds to states, this is probably the reason for the big push. This I would blame on Bush's skewed economic policies.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#15)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    et al - Have you cosidered that if Bork had been confirmed this wouldn't have happened?

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Liberalism - it's no longer about freedom. It's now about big government. Anyone thinking of changing sides yet?
    As a leftist libertarian, I can say sorry, but no. This decision was total b.s., but the liberals still have the best show around, and until I see the vast majority of liberals turn authoritarian, I'm going to stay right where I am.

    This wasn't a groundbreaking decision. Over the years, the Supreme Court has deferred to local legislative bodies to decide what constitutes "public use" of property. In this decision, the majority relied upon that precedent to hold in favor of New London. O'Connor's dissent was brilliant. She carved out enough wiggle room from previous precedent to make a case in favor of the home owners without destroying the court's previous deference to local authority. If her opinion had ruled, it would have held in favor of private property owners without giving ground to private property absolutists. The opinion of the majority isn't a "liberal" decision. It's a decision in favor of moneyed interests and big corporations. It gives those with political clout the ability to take whatever they want.

    I hit the post button before I read what TL said below the fold:
    I think it's a lousy decision and Government should keep its hands off our property the same way it should keep its laws off our bodies.
    That's perfect. That's why this can't be called a "liberal" decision.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    I have read neither the case nor the decision and so I will not venture an opinion on this issue, but surely a blanket statement such as
    Government should keep its hands off our property the same way it should keep its laws off our bodies,
    broadly drawing a parallel between body and property is materialist dogmatism. A person's body is more important than any property. Similarly, the notion of "property" is used to mask the distinction between necessities and excessive possessions.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Here's a different view from Community Rights Counsel:
    Today, in Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New London's "carefully considered" decision to use eminent domain to promote economic development "unquestionably serves a public purpose" and thus satisfies the public-use requirement set forth in the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ruling means that states and cities retain a critically important economic development tool. Economic development means more jobs for local residents, more tax dollars for city services like police protection and child welfare, and the promise of new hope and opportunity in distressed areas. Although considerable attention has been paid to the landowners in the case, the plight of the unemployed in New London also must be taken into account. Decreasing unemployment also reduces the social ills that go with it, including spousal abuse, alcoholism, crime, and suicide. Timothy J. Dowling, Chief Counsel of Community Rights Counsel, hailed the ruling: "Today's ruling gives hope to economically depressed communities across the country struggling to put a paycheck into the hands of the unemployed and to enhance vital public services for those most in need." Community Rights Counsel co-authored an amicus brief in Kelo supporting New London on behalf of a large coalition of state and local officials.


    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    I'm not sure how anybody can blame this on big business and the current President Bush. First of all, George W. has not appointed any Supreme Court Justices... or many other judges for that matter. Also, if you look at how the Justices voted you will see that the 4 most conservative Justices (Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia and O'Connor) were the dissenting votes. Bryer and Ginsburg are President Clinton appointees and Stevens, Souter and Kennedy are known to be Centrists. If you assume that Conservatives are pro-business, then why did the four most conservative Justices dissent??? Come on Liberals... if you don't like the decision you can't blame it on the Conservatives. At least be honest with yourself.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#17)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Yes, Cheetah you are right. I don't think anyone in her or his right mind thinks this is a sane idea from that insane court decision, by the way this is something some Red Marxist would love, but soon people will start to get the point of why we have property rights or had property rights when some big boy comes and hands you 50 percent of your homes value and tells you to get out of town now, think that won't happen, "do you", but after all we do live in the land of freedom and 20 million homeless people don't we? fight back or become the third world.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Fred- Speaking of the growing homeless population, I was just talking about that yesterday. In the past, the media was always on top of that story. Now you hear barely a peep. No one wants to cover news that doesn't "feel good", especially if it would make this current administration appear to be failing in any way.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#19)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    The very definition of fascism- you can own property, but the gov't will tell you what you can do with it. Thanks to the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    isn't this a good socialist decision we should all be proud of? the Court didn't constrain itself with the actual words of the Constitution-they evolved the worthless piece of paper like a good court should.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Ed..thats the thing, liberals don't have to agree with everything Democrats do in power do. For the most part, we think for ourselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, are the automatons, agreeing with the Republicans for no other reason than that they are republican/conservative. To the detriment of the nation, I might add. I say, freedom above all else, this is a bad decision that is anti-freedom. grad...switch sides? I have no side. If you support freedom, warts and all, there is no room for you in either party. I tend to vote Democrat because they are slightly less corrupt and slightly less dangerous, not because they truly represent my views.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    I hear that refrain once in a while and compare it to the lockstep march of the left-it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. where is this great diversity of opinion?

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#23)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Kdog:
    Conservatives, on the other hand, are the automatons, agreeing with the Republicans for no other reason than that they are republican/conservative. To the detriment of the nation, I might add.
    I can prove you wrong: I am a conservative, disagreed with Bush on going into Iraq (since we are there, we have to see it through now), Disagree with him on his illegal immigration views, his liberal, big gov't stance. Just proved your poorly worded statement wrong.

    the Court didn't constrain itself with the actual words of the Constitution-they evolved the worthless piece of paper
    Sorry, Ed. If you want to go off on an "activist judges" rant, you'll need to find another decision. This one doesn't fit the bill. The majority stuck tight to previous precedent. It was O'Connor, writing for the minority, that found a way to be "activist." And Clarence Thomas, of course, was the most activist at all. In a separate dissenting opinion, he proposed turning the clocks back at least 50 years.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    you couldn't be more wrong. Thomas' dissent went right to the words and history of the worthless evolving document so beloved in the abstract here. what you are too blind to see is that an evolving document means nothing. If five judges leaning towards a socialist interpretation of the Constitution decide to ignore the words, you are out of luck. As I have seen in other comments on the case, an accused criminal now has more power to prevent a search than an ordinary citizen has to prevent a wholesale seizure of his property. where do you think the founding fathers would come out on this issue?

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Some thoughts: 1) Wile E. Coyote - Need to familiarize yourself with a little something called the "Takings Clause". I'm not sure I'd characterize the Constitution as a fascist document, although I know the concept of eminent domain makes a lot of people queasy when they find out that the framers stuck it in there. 2) Charges of an 'activist' decision here are, quite frankly, ridiculous. Whether or not you agree with it, the direction of eminent domain jurisprudence over the last 50 years has been to give extremely broad latitude to what consitutes a 'public use.' This decision is wholly consistent with Berman and Midkiff and was completely predictable. I guess we're using a more flexible definition of 'activist' judge nowadays that simply means 'any judge who rules in a way I don't agree with.'

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#27)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Quaker - For years and years women couldn't vote, and I am sure people could point to precedent. The same for slavery. But finally people looked around and said, "That's nonsense." And the problem got fixed. So what you have here is an activist court using previous activist opinions to "leagalize" the destruction of the Fifth Amendment. In this case the court may have reached too far. In an AOL poll yesterday 95% of the respondents disagreed with the decision. Although the poll can be called "unscientific," the results are so astonishingly negative they cannot be ignored. This should, and will, be used to reform the court.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#28)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    bonelsj -
    nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    The historic meaning of this was roads, schools, hospitals, dams, airports, utility right of ways. All clearly necessary for the use by the public, and for the public good. In this case the taking is for, supposedly, to generate more taxes for the city. To do so the city will give the seized properties to private developers. How will success of this plan be measured? Will the developers use 100% private money? If not, when and how will the public money be repaid? If the plan fails, what measures are in place to repay the money? If the tax revenues are less than projected, who will make up the difference? This is such a stretch that it is hard to believe that a rational person would support it, even if you though that it was legal.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#29)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    bonelsj -
    nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    The historic meaning of this was roads, schools, hospitals, dams, airports, utility right of ways. All clearly necessary for the use by the public, and for the public good. In this case the taking is for, supposedly, to generate more taxes for the city. To do so the city will give the seized properties to private developers. How will success of this plan be measured? Will the developers use 100% private money? If not, when and how will the public money be repaid? If the plan fails, what measures are in place to repay the money? If the tax revenues are less than projected, who will make up the difference? This is such a stretch that it is hard to believe that a rational person would support it, even if they thought it legal. Fenria writes:
    As a leftist libertarian
    Could you expound on that? I mean a libertarian wants no government, and a leftist wants a large and active government.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#30)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Arguing about whether to call the decision "activist" or just "bad" seems unhelpful, but fun...
    The majority stuck tight to previous precedent. It was O'Connor, writing for the minority, that found a way to be "activist."
    Precedent has gradually expanded the power, and this decision expanded it a little bit more, yes? It sounds funny to call something gradual "activist", but I think it fits what people usually mean by that word. So I'd call this decision just the latest in a gestalt-activist process.
    And Clarence Thomas, of course, was the most activist at all. In a separate dissenting opinion, he proposed turning the clocks back at least 50 years.
    Is undoing activism "activism"?

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    I'd have no problem with this ruling if it mandated MORE than just and fair compensation for property siezed for this reason. For the simple reason that the developed property will generate revenue for the city, state, whomever. The owner of siezed land, when the seizure is for private business development, MUST share in the profits emanating from that seizure. At least in my humble opine.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    The owner of siezed land, when the seizure is for private business development, MUST share in the profits emanating from that seizure
    But what if the owner wants no part of it Dadler? What if some old lady just wants to keep her house? She is powerless to the whim of the state and big business. She is forced to sell. That's not freedom.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    Let's put freedom and the rights of the individual before revenue.

    Is undoing activism "activism"?
    For the Supreme Court, yes. Unless the court finds that a previous decision was wrongly decided--a rare finding--the court gives precedence enormous weight. Finding that a previous case was wrongly decided requires careful legal reasoning. Simply ignoring precedent is activism.

    And Ed, even from a strict constructionist point of view, government holds the power of eminent domain. The difference of opinion swings on the meaning of "public use," a phrase that's not defined in the constitution. The court's precedent has been to allow local legislatures decide what it means--you know, states rights and all that? That's the precedent the court used to make this decision.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#36)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    boonelsj: Nowhere did I say the Consitiution was fascist, their ruling saying You may own the property, but gov't may takie it anytime or tell you what you can do with it is the very definition of fascism.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    I don't see this decision as entirely liberal or entirely conservative. The Sup. Ct. used precedent, with some dissenting. The problem with this decision is in defining who benefits from the seized property. If the state can now give this property over to corporatists, allowing them the final determinations on use of it, that's Fascism on it's face. I agree with kdog, this decision is anti-freedom for the populace, pro-freedom for the corporatists. As a leftist, not a liberal, I say it's a bad decision, but not an "activist" one.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#38)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    Well, if I were In Charge, but couldn't change this, I'd slip a late-nighter through with the following requirements. Every public official (city council, zoning board, city manager, mayor, appraiser, and others I could think of) would have to publish a forensic financial statement every year for the rest of their lives. Because this where the real corruption will be found.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes (none / 0) (#39)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    Supporters of those "liberal" justices should take note that the WSWS also opposes this decision.
    There are an almost unlimited list of projects that could and should be undertaken to eliminate such social scourges as poverty, unemployment, homelessness, decaying housing and schools, and lack of health care, but none can be carried out without attacking precisely what both sides in last week’s Supreme Court ruling uphold as unassailable—private ownership of the major levers of economic life and the subordination of human needs to the pursuit of corporate profit and the accumulation of personal wealth by the privileged few. A socialist policy would proceed from the need to reverse the perverse priorities that presently dominate society, establishing democratic control by the working people over the great monopolies in industry, finance, telecommunications, transport and computer technology, and harnessing the vast power of these enterprises to meet the needs of the population as a whole, with the goal of raising living standards for all, ending the tyranny of concentrated wealth, and achieving social equality. The division on the court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London underscores the political fact that the disputes between the liberals and the right wing reflect differences within the same ruling elite, all of whose factions defend capitalism and uphold the fundamentally anti-democratic principles that underlie the profit system.
    Supreme Court upholds government land grabs for developers By John Andrews and Barry Grey, 27 June 2005