Supreme Court's ruling on Eminent Domain.

[DiscoDiva]

I am shocked! Now, our individual property rights are being taken away! They can now take your home or land for what they consider "public user" reasons. So, even if you live in a well-maintained home in an area that is not blighted, the government can support a private developer in taking your home to create an area for the developer to make money.

It used to be the land could only be taken for "public purpose" such as a highway, etc. Now, any commercial developer can try to take your land because they want to build a restaurant/entertainment/whatever they want area, citing that it will be used by "public users." It used to be that developers had to pay a premium price in true negotiations to get your land. At least property owners had some rights! Now, we have none. Why should the developer pay a market price or negotiate with us little people when they can just rely on their political connections to help them cite eminent domain?

Then, what if their newest folly goes bankrupt? We lost our home to what is now an abandoned shopping center. Such a waste! Or, what if their project goes over well? Will they keep grabbing at private homes in order to expand their personal money-making machine?

Since when it is the government's job to support private enterprise in their money-making endeavors by allowing them to bully private property owners?

This whole thing is so sickening to me. Is my home safe? Based on it's location, maybe not!

[lawyergirl25]

I understand your sentiment, DD, absolutely. But I think there was more to the story in this particular case than a private developer just coming in and using his political connections to get the land he wanted. IIRC, the city was implementing an extensive urban revitalization plan that involved building office and retail space on the waterfront, where the homes that were condemned stood.

I'm not saying that I'm not worried about the erosion of individual property rights, because I certainly agree that this ruling gives municipalities and developers a lot more leeway when it comes to defining public use, but I don't want anyone to have any misconceptions about what happened in this case.

[dionysia]

There is more to the story, certainly, but I still think it's a BS ruling.

Di
(who grew up in the New London CT area)

[DiscoDiva]

Yes, there were condemned buildings in the area, but there were also well kept up homes too! Plus, I've recently read of other areas where all of the homes were fine, but they were in an older neighborhood and a developer wanted the property for personal use.

[lawyergirl25]

By condemned, I meant taken by eminent domain, not shut down by the city for code violations.

[camberne]

I think it's total crap, too. It's really scary to think that now the government has the right to take your home for something that I consider frivolous. A new school, a hospital, a police/fire/rescue station, a jail, or something that the community as a whole NEEDS - I can see where eminent domain would be appropriate. But to take land from one person to give to a developer to build condos or a mixed use complex or retail shops... I consider that an abuse and it is just wrong. Plain and simple, wrong.

I posted a thread when this first came down... Poetic Justice... which detailed a story that a developer has now decided that the property of one of the SCOTUS justices would be a fine place for a hotel and museum on the loss of the American Dream. I really hope it goes through... because the ruling was bullshit.

[lawyergirl25]

I posted a thread when this first came down... Poetic Justice... which detailed a story that a developer has now decided that the property of one of the SCOTUS justices would be a fine place for a hotel and museum on the loss of the American Dream. I really hope it goes through... because the ruling was bullshit.
Is that legit? I was under the impression that whoever filed the lawsuit was just trying to make a point.

[DiscoDiva]

I think it's total crap, too. It's really scary to think that now the government has the right to take your home for something that I consider frivolous. A new school, a hospital, a police/fire/rescue station, a jail, or something that the community as a whole NEEDS - I can see where eminent domain would be appropriate. But to take land from one person to give to a developer to build condos or a mixed use complex or retail shops... I consider that an abuse and it is just wrong. Plain and simple, wrong.
Exactly! Can you imagine someone saying, "You have to give up your home because I decided I want to build a strip center here? But don't worry, it will also have entertainment for the whole family and will bring tourism to the area. Feel better now?" Ummmm.... no, I don't feel better.

It's that they can take your home for a profit venture - that's what gets to me. Once again, big business wins out over the little guy. I hope people keep fighting this tooth and nail until they change this ruling!!

[julietchicago]

Well this is happening in my town right now! They want to take away homes to build a high rise condo building across the lake. But they don't care about the homeowner who has worked their ass off paying their mortgage and maintaining their home for all these years. What happened to the American Dream? So easily it can be taken away.....

It's a bunch of BS if you ask me.

One of the houses that is being affected has a sign out that says "Please don't take my mom's house away"

So sad....

[lawyergirl25]

Link to the case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108) - in case anyone wants to read the actual opinion.

Again, I respect everyone's feelings about the ruling, but I don't disagree with the court's rationale. This wasn't a case where the city took the property simply to give it to a private developer - the court was very clear that that would not be a constitutional taking. So I won't even debate that point.

Also, I feel badly for property owners who lose their houses for any public project. But I don't think the emotional toll from having your house condemned varies with the project it is being taken for. I certainly wouldn't think to myself, "Well, my yard is going to be in the middle of a much-needed interstate highway - so I don't feel as bad." I'm upset either way. I guess I don't see why that should make a difference. If it should, why would we have eminent domain in the first place? It's always someone's house.

****
I checked on the lawsuit camberne referred to. I'm thinking it was a joke:

Developer Wants To Seize Supreme Court Justice's Home
Home Would Be Replaced With 'Lost Liberty' Hotel

WEARE, N.H. -- Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel.

...

The letter dubbing the project the "Lost Liberty Hotel" was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh's Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe" an a museum focused on the "loss of freedom in America."
Here's the link (http://www.channelcincinnati.com/irresistible/4665121/detail.html)

[camberne]

Yep, read the opinions and I agree wholeheartedly with Sandra Day O'Connor. It's a horrible decision.

[DiscoDiva]

Sorry, I read the ruling, but I still disagree. Here are some reasons why:

After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell.

To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development
The city didn't take this property for a public NEED, like a highway. It wants the property in hopes that it will "promote economic development." It wants the property to make money.

Plus, why purchase "most" of the property before getting to this stage? Here's a novel thought: why not purchase ALL of the property before getting this far into the planning and having to bring the courts into it?

In addition to creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and helping to "build momentum for the revitalization of downtown New London," id., at 92, the plan was also designed to make the City more attractive and to create leisure and recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park.
So, they are going to take my house from me in order to "make the City more attractive" and create "leisure and recreational opportunities"? Sorry, but that wouldn't make me feel better. How about cleaning up the city and putting more money into the parks?

I love these quotes by Sandra Day O'Connor. You go girl!!
This case returns us for the first time in over 20 years to the hard question of when a purportedly "public purpose" taking meets the public use requirement. It presents an issue of first impression: Are economic development takings constitutional? I would hold that they are not.
Even if there were a practical way to isolate the motives behind a given taking, the gesture toward a purpose test is theoretically flawed. If it is true that incidental public benefits from new private use are enough to ensure the "public purpose" in a taking, why should it matter, as far as the Fifth Amendment is concerned, what inspired the taking in the first place? How much the government does or does not desire to benefit a favored private party has no bearing on whether an economic development taking will or will not generate secondary benefit for the public. And whatever the reason for a given condemnation, the effect is the same from the constitutional perspective--private property is forcibly relinquished to new private ownership.
Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

[lawyergirl25]

The city didn't take this property for a public NEED, like a highway. It wants the property in hopes that it will "promote economic development." It wants the property to make money.
Actually, my impression was that in addition to revenue generating, the city was also worried about a very high unemployment rate. I think attempts to lower the unemployment rate address a public need.

Not to mention, the Constitution says "public use," not "public need."

So, they are going to take my house from me in order to "make the City more attractive" and create "leisure and recreational opportunities"?
Both valid public uses and a proper use of eminent domain.

I live in a town that is attempting to create and implement an urban revitalization project meant to improve our economy and bring more jobs to the area. Without the eminent domain power, I don't know how the city planners would be able to get it - or many other public projects - done.

For me, this case just demonstrates how important local elections can be.

[dionysia]

For me, this case just demonstrates how important local elections can be.This is the big problem I have with the case, lawyergirl.

The NLDC is NOT an elected body. Who the hell knows the agendas of the people on the committee?

If this were just dealing with the City vs the petitioners, then I'd have less of an issue with it, since the City Councilors are elected.

And let me tell you (general you!), there is PLENTY of unused land/properties in the Southeastern CT area. Plenty that Pfizer could have used. Plenty of land in New London. I know why they wanted to use Ft Trumbull specifically; it's got a waterview = more $$$$.

Di

[lawyergirl25]

This is the big problem I have with the case, lawyergirl.

The NLDC is NOT an elected body. Who the hell knows the agendas of the people on the committee?
That would bother me too. Thanks for pointing that out.

And let me tell you (general you!), there is PLENTY of unused land/properties in the Southeastern CT area. Plenty that Pfizer could have used. Plenty of land in New London. I know why they wanted to use Ft Trumbull specifically; it's got a waterview = more $$$$.
Forgive me, but I am completely unfamiliar with the area - I only know what I do from a quick read of the opinion and a handful of AP stories. But are the other available lands - the "plenty of unused land" - not suitable for the project? Or maybe, not as desirable? See, I don't really have a problem with them choosing the best site for the project (i.e. waterfront property), because if they are going to go to the time and expense of such a huge project, it should be on the site where it will have the best shot at success.


I really don't feel as passionately about this as my posts might make it seem, I swear. :) It's just a very interesting topic to me.

[DiscoDiva]

I really don't feel as passionately about this as my posts might make it seem, I swear. :) It's just a very interesting topic to me.
I don't mean to imply anything by this, but are you a homeowner? Quite honestly, many years ago, before home ownership was an issue to me, I wouldn't have cared a bit about this whole issue.

[lawyergirl25]

I don't mean to imply anything by this, but are you a homeowner?
I'm honestly surprised that someone didn't ask before now, since I'm pretty sure I know where this is going.

No, I don't currently own my home - we're moving next month and are looking for a house in another city. Does that qualify me to speak on the topic, or should I come back next month? ;)

[DiscoDiva]

I'm honestly surprised that someone didn't ask before now, since I'm pretty sure I know where this is going.

No, I don't currently own my home - we're moving next month and are looking for a house in another city. Does that qualify me to speak on the topic, or should I come back next month? ;)

You are still very welcome to speak on the topic! :) It just seems that once you own a home, and put your sweat and tears into it, and spend hours searching for the 'perfect' one, and build memories in it, your views change.

I do see how you are looking at this topic objectively, from a legal standpoint. But, what do you think personally?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's a great excerpt I read in an article:
"Quite literally, your home or other property could be seized and given to any big company that would promise to pay more taxes than you do."

How long until Walmart starts using this "public purpose" ruling to expand even more?

[lawyergirl25]

Okay, you asked the $64,000 question :) - and I think it sucks. I don't even really like the power of eminent domain, for all the reasons that you've stated.

BUT...to my mind, it's a necessary evil. I mean, change the scenario. There's a real need for a street to be widened in my town. If the city didn't have power of eminent domain, how long would it take them to make settlements with every landowner along that street if the homeowner knew that s/he had every incentive to hold out? And how much would it cost? (Incidentally, I'm not sure, but I think they would actually have to take the houses, not just land - the homes on the street don't have any front yards as it is.)

The thing is that the Constitution is of very little help in the matter. The way the amendment is written and the way the Court has read it is if there's a public use, the govt can take the property, end of story. You're only entitled to just compensation (and that's a whole 'nother debate, I know).

So what to do? Have the Court interpret the 5th Amendment in a way completely different than they have for years and years (possibly incurring criticism as "judicial activitists")? Amend the Constitution? I don't know.


As for whether my views on certain laws would change, I'm sure you're right to some extent, but I could probably say something very similar to anyone who hasn't been to law school. I know my views on a lot of things changed when I learned the law and, more importantly, the rationales behind them. I tend to look at things a lot more objectively now than I did before and as a result, my opinions are different.


ETA: I realized that I sound a little elitist with the whole "if you've never been to law school" thing, but I honestly don't know how else to word it. Please give me the benefit of the doubt that my intent was not to insult.

[DiscoDiva]

I get what you're saying. No offense. But to me, needing to widen a street for the use by the whole town, from fire trucks to ambulances to citizens is different from wanting to build a retail center in for a large corporation that hopes to make money.

I haven't heard hardly anyone say that they disagree with the original intent of eminent domain. Some things are a necessity. But this new ruling is what is causing the problem, as it isn't about a need, it's about a want.

[lawyergirl25]

Therein lies our disagreement. :)

[DiscoDiva]

Therein lies our disagreement. :)
So you see the retail center as a need? Or do you not like eminent domain regardless of the reason?

[lawyergirl25]

Personally, I don't *like* it for any reason. I recognize the need for it.

And I wouldn't categorize the center itself as a need, but I might the overall revitalization plan, of which the center is a part. Of course, as I said earlier, whether it is a need or a want is really irrelevant.

[DiscoDiva]

Want v. need is hugely relevant in our society. Ex. medical insurance pays for surgery needs (appendicitis) but not wants (nose job or implants). Employers pay for needs (sick days) not wants (4 weeks off paid to cruise the world). The government gives food stamps to those who need them, not anyone who wants them. How is want v. need not relevant?

[lawyergirl25]

Because the Constitution doesn't distinguish between want and need:

The thing is that the Constitution is of very little help in the matter. The way the amendment is written and the way the Court has read it is if there's a public use, the govt can take the property, end of story. You're only entitled to just compensation (and that's a whole 'nother debate, I know).

We're starting to talk in circles here.

[lawyerlee]

And I wouldn't categorize the center itself as a need, but I might the overall revitalization plan, of which the center is a part. Of course, as I said earlier, whether it is a need or a want is really irrelevant.
I don't like the decision or agree with it, but ITA with you about this. That's just a fact of life under the law that isn't specific to this decision. The question would be whether it was *public*, if anything.

[DiscoDiva]

Because the Constitution doesn't distinguish between want and need:
Okay, I get what you're saying.

I still don't like the ruling, but I understand what you're saying.

[chefker]

I do get BOTH sides of the issue--I really do. Part of my grandmother's farm was taken, MANY years ago, when the Mass Turnpike was being built. Was Nana pissed about this? Damn diddly. But, they didn't boot her off her land altogether--they took a PORTION of it, thus allowing the family home to remain. My grandfather eventually gave up raising horses, as that was what the extra parcel of land was used for, before being seized.

Likewise, there is talk in my town of installing pedestrian sidewalks. I do not mind at ALL giving up part of our tree belt in order to ensure the safety of kids who walk to school (right now they have to walk in the road, or on the grass. A few people who are complaining about this, are annoyed that they'll have to move their mailboxes or plantings, amongst other things. BUT we're not being driven from our homes...

The two examples I've listed demonstrate eminent domain used PROPERLY (IMO). Both instances are for the greater public good; in the case of the MassPike, ease in transportation, and with the sidewalks in my town, it's a public safety issue.

As far as the New London case, since unemployment rates are being used as a 'reason' for the seizing of these homes, our elected officials should focus on keeping the Groton sub base from closing. Now THAT affects unemployment rates more than big business not being able to seize some prime waterfront property. I've also read that one of these slated 'projects' for New London, is a parking garage that will take up half a city block. Um....how many jobs will a parking garage provide? Seriously....

[dionysia]

ITA with Kerrie about needing to keep the Sub Base in Groton open.

The Groton/New London area has been hit hard over the last 20 years from the decline of the defense industry. General Dynamics (Electric Boat) lost the Seawolf contract. NUSC (NUWC) closed/move to Newport.

The only new business in the area have been the casinos and Pfizer, for the most part.

I do think that the area needs a revitalization plan, definitely! But I don't think that taking people's homes was the right way to go about it, especially by a Commission that may have been acting in the best interests of Pfizer. I also have problems with the assertion by the court that a commercial center with no directly redeeming public value should fall under the umbrella of eminent domain. I also don't think that the possibility of taxes going to the town and potential jobs was enough to sacrifice this neighborhood. I do understand eminent domain and sacrifice for the greater public good, I really do.

As for land in New London/Groton; I would say that while there was plenty of land, these parcels were the most 'desirable' in terms of the waterview. But again, that to me is not a compelling reason to try to force people out.

Di

[DiscoDiva]

As for land in New London/Groton; I would say that while there was plenty of land, these parcels were the most 'desirable' in terms of the waterview. But again, that to me is not a compelling reason to try to force people out.
The two examples I've listed demonstrate eminent domain used PROPERLY (IMO). Both instances are for the greater public good; in the case of the MassPike, ease in transportation, and with the sidewalks in my town, it's a public safety issue.
Both excellent points that I agree with!

[camberne]

I don't know if it's different in different municipalities, but here, the first 4 feet from the street is a "given" as being an easement for the city in case they need to put sidewalks in... just as the easements around the property for water/sewer lines. Sidewalks are also a huge safety item and I don't know of anyone who would really argue their installations.

There is a big debate going on here right now about a new highway that is proposed. It's not NEEDED, but it would alleviate about 20 minutes of travel time to get from one city to the other. If people were being forced out of their homes for it, I would disagree with it. I don't believe they are. I believe that it's just a matter of increased traffic/noise in the affected areas that are the issues being raised.

[lawyerlee]

I don't know if it's different in different municipalities, but here, the first 4 feet from the street is a "given" as being an easement for the city in case they need to put sidewalks in... just as the easements around the property for water/sewer lines. Sidewalks are also a huge safety item and I don't know of anyone who would really argue their installations.

There is a big debate going on here right now about a new highway that is proposed. It's not NEEDED, but it would alleviate about 20 minutes of travel time to get from one city to the other. If people were being forced out of their homes for it, I would disagree with it. I don't believe they are. I believe that it's just a matter of increased traffic/noise in the affected areas that are the issues being raised.
I think that easement you speak of is pretty typical, but I could be mistaken.

The highway plan you speak of wouldn't even bother me because that is actually a public use! That's what the Constitution (though not in our modern car-driving way) clearly provides for. I wouldn't have one single beef with that because it is not playing a shell game in which the government takes someone's land under ED and transfers it to a private owner and had that in mind the whole time. That's a total distortion of ED, IMHO.