Property In Landmark Eminent Domain Supreme Court Case Never Used

[DeSwiss]

Property In Landmark Eminent Domain Supreme Court Case Never Used

Huffington Post | KATIE NELSON | 09/25/09 06:03 PM | AP


John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp. stands in a vacant
lot in New London, Conn., on Monday, Sept. 21, 2009. The lot, along with 90 nearby acres
sits at the heart of an ongoing controversy about the rights of cities to use eminent domain
to take property from one private owner for private development. (AP Photo/Fred Beckham)

NEW LONDON, Conn. — Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation's most notorious eminent domain project. There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne's lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot's towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant. But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing. Proponents of the ambitious plan blame the sour economy. Opponents call it a "poetic justice."

"They are getting what they deserve. They are going to get nothing," said Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the landmark property rights case. "I don't think this is what the United States Supreme Court justices had in mind when they made this decision." Kelo's iconic pink home sat for more than a century on that currently empty lot, just steps away from Connecticut's quaint but economically distressed Long Island Sound waterfront. Shortly after she moved in, in 1997, her house became ground zero in the nation's best-known land rights catfight.

New London officials decided they needed Kelo's land and the surrounding 90 acres for a multimillion-dollar private development that included residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park that would complement a new $350 million Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility.

Kelo and six other homeowners fought for years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, justices voted 5-4 against them, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/property-in-landmark-emin_n_300443.html">MORE

- First they got stuck with Joe Lieberman, and now this.

Connecticut, it sucks to be you.......
==============================================================================
DeSwiss


http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox




"Faith in a holy cause is really a substitute for the loss of faith in ourselves. " - Eric Hoffer, "True Believer"

[Ian David]

1. Both Liberals AND Conservatives were up in arms over this case.

I accidentally tuned-in to Limbaugh when this was going on, and he was blaming it on Liberals.

I wanted to call-in and say, "Rush... dude... The Liberals are on your side on this!"

But we really weren't.

Limbaugh wasn't REALLY against this decision.

Limbaugh was just providing cover for his own team by blaming it on us.

But in fact, from what I read here during The Great Eminent Domain Flame War of 2005, this is really a very narrowly-based decision on a very small niche of cases that didn't rate as much attention as it got.

[DeSwiss]

6. Rush Limpball's # 1 concern is always......

...Rush Limpballs. Anything else is just incidental.





on edit : spelling

[imdjh]

7. The only reason this wasn't a bigger issue is because state legislatures raced to restrict.

Riviera Beach Eminent Domain Suits Dropped

POSTED: 4:51 pm EDT May 10, 2007
UPDATED: 10:41 am EDT May 11, 2007


RIVIERA BEACH, Fla. -- Two national advocacy groups dropped lawsuits Thursday against the city of Riviera Beach Thursday, aimed at stopping one of the nation's largest eminent domain projects after the city said it would not force residents from their homes.
The move comes one year after Florida enacted a law that prohibits the use of eminent domain for private development.
Steven Geoffrey Gieseler is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation. It sued the city on behalf of residents fighting to stay in their homes. He said the fact that Riviera Beach has backed down and decided not to use eminent domain is evidence that the new state law has teeth.
The Arlington, Virginia-based Institute for Justice also dropped its lawsuit against the city on behalf of residents.
Bert Gall, an attorney with the group, said their clients' rights to keep their homes and businesses has been vindicated.
Copyright 2007 by WPBF.com.

http://www.wpbf.com/news/13297070/detail.html

[Ian David]

9. That's good. Thanks! Needs a link though. n/t

[babylonsister]

2. I read about this; what a stinkin' waste for so many people. Their

lives were so disrupted, for what? :grr:

[DeSwiss]

8. For What? In this case.....

...is was for Pfizer. And in Connecticut -- what Pfizer wants, Pfizer gets.

[Fire1]

3. It's working just about everywhere else. The upside is

the fact they can't sell the development projects in most places, so they better have deep pockets to ride this wave. Secondly, when and if they finally do sell, they're not going to sell at 2006 prices.

[DeSwiss]

10. Right. Working.

I suppose that's why over 40 states passed laws AFTER the ruling to prevent this happening in their states....

[Fire1]

19. Those laws "rein in abuses in varying degrees" and in at

least ten other states, abuse still runs rampant.

[DeSwiss]

22. I didn't say they were great laws....

...just that they'd passed laws after this Supreme Court ruling ostensibly designed to prevent these kinds of abuses. On the other hand, this all happens because of lawyers and their writing of these laws. And its the another group of lawyers who undoes what the intent of the first laws were designed to do. And then finally, another group of lawyers sit on benches and rules in favor of their brethren and sisteren.

Which all goes to prove that Dick in Shakespeare's Henry IV had the right idea.

- Whoops, you're not a lawyer are ya?!?!?!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. That happens more than you think in eminent domain cases.

There should be some kind of automatic giveback to the original owners if development doesn't occur within 10 years.

Ah, yes, the Kelo case which said it's ok for the state/city/town to seize private property and turn it over to another private interest in order to create jobs and increase the tax base. Sandra Day O'Connor famously said, every Motel Six is at risk if Hilton ever desires their property. The WORST SUPREME COURT DECISION EVER!!!!! (Well, in the Top 10 anyway, there were a few worse ones)

Apologists will say that it simply puts the authority with the state which is able to craft stronger eminent domain laws than those at the Federal level. Realists will tell you that STATE legislatures, being smaller are even more subject to undue influence by large developers - the FEDS are supposed to protect against shit like that. A very prominent eminent domain attorney gave a seminar which I attended and said in your state, the eminent domain laws could be changed yearly with no Federal oversight. Good jobs you Supreme Court !@#$. And, it was the LIBERAL Justices that made this God-awful decision. It's probably the only time in my life that I agreed with Scalia, Thomas, and the other 2 dissenters (I know O'Conner, but I don't know the other one)

An interesting eminent domain case is the Big River Reservoir in Rhode Island which took over hundreds of family properties, ostensibly for the (you guessed it)the Big River Reservoir which NEVER happened. Some had been family farms dating to the Revolutionary period.

[imdjh]

12. It was a really bad decision and it scared the hell out of everybody.

The mayor of Riviera Beach wasn't bashful about his aims or his reasons. Essentially, his feeling was that the waterfront property owners were "rich people" and that hotels where their houses were would open up the waterfront for "the people" to use and give them jobs.

[Liberal_in_LA]

18. Before the 2005 ruling most assumed e.d. was used to build schools and freeways.

We had no idea land was being grabbed to be given to private developers.

[imdjh]

25. Exactly, we read "public use" literally, as public works.

BTW, the waterfront property owners in Riviera Beach were not "rich people" they were people who wanted waterfront property bad enough to move that far up the coast.

[DeSwiss]

13. Worst Decisions????

I'd have to beg to differ:

Scott v. Sanford

Plessy v. Ferguson

....but it's close to being the worst.

[Bandit]

31. Bush* v Gore

....just saying...:shrug:

[Liberal_in_LA]

17. The motel 6 property going to a Hilton example came true. They'd eminent domain a 99cent store

and give the property to a Target. It wasn't just private homes that were in danger.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

21. There are lots of examples. I know of a big box trying to "take" a smaller business

with the collusion of the town because they want the Big Box. The Big Box could just pay a fair value, but they won't and prefer that the town do the dirty work for them. This one went the way of the little guy due to public outrage and nothing else.

BUT, it is NOT just commercial properties. Any area of older smaller homes in a desirable location (along a lake, river, close to a Town Center, etc.) is now ripe for the plucking if a developer comes in and says to the town, "I can build high-end condos and give you a higher tax basis." The Supreme Court said that's ok, the town could "take" your property for the advantage of the private developer. It is just SICKENING.

[Liberal_in_LA]

23. Yes, it is sickening. The ruling was shocking to everyone, left and right

[Selatius]

28. Which kind of makes one think who really runs this country.

I like to think a third party exists and is in power, yet it has no name, but if it had a name, it would be the Corporatist Party, and it has members in both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

[Liberal_in_LA]

29. Big business runs the show...what they want, they get

[Libertas1776]

5. Eminent domain abuse

is one of the greatest continuous crimes committed in this country. Just look at NYC for the past decade.

[DeSwiss]

14. Agreed. n/t

[pitohui]

11. yeah the economy collapsed, wow, what was their first clue?

they missed their chance to fix this town w. all their fucking selfishiness and lawsuits

so what's the question again?

they fucked everyone and by the time it got to court it was too late, nobody in connecticut ever read bleak house? wtf did they think was gonna happen?

they fucked themselves

doesn't mean eminent domain is bad or harmful

it means they fucked themselves and it's very sad but that's life sometimes

[DeSwiss]

16. Well at least they now have a nice park. n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. Good God! What passes for "journalism"?! - "Land rights CATFIGHT"?!

"Shortly after she moved in, in 1997, her house became ground zero in the nation's best-known land rights catfight."

Nice way to denigrate and minimize the battle of home owners to preserve their private property from being TAKEN by the state and give to another private entity.

Pathetic in the extreme.

[DeSwiss]

20. I know, I know....

...and its AP which is kinda even worse, but not completely unexpected. I suppose after watching the recent Teabagger's protest signs newspapers have totally given up on the idea of spelling, grammar, and you know, shit like that.

[Why Syzygy]

24. k/r

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

26. kick! This is one ruling that needs to be overturned! nt.

[jberryhill]

27. Probably the most misunderstood ruling ever

The question in this case was whether the state eminent domain law was constitutional.

Most state eminent domain laws are not as broad as the one at issue, with the result that this ruling is totally irrelevant in most of the country.

We return to the scheduled hyperventilation.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

30. Do you think Sandra Day O'Connor "misunderstood" the ruling?

So what if "most" state eminent domain laws are not as broad? That didn't help the people in Connecticut, did it? This leaves all the citizens of the United States at the mercy of whatever their state legislature decides is appropriate use of eminent domain when most of thought we had the protection of the Bill of Rights and the Fifth Amendment.

Statehouses are among the MOST corrupt places in our civil structure - many are run like ancestral fiefdoms by the Big Fish in the Small Ponds. Sure, after Kelo, some legislatures enacted laws that forbade the kind of taking that occurred in Kelo. Big Deal. They can change that law in another session or if there's a party in power switch or if some deep pocket entity just wants to get something done. There is not the type of protection that a correct ruling in Kelo would have provided.

I mentioned that I had attended a seminar given by an eminent domain attorney who has defended many times, these kinds of "takings". The biggest weapon in the arsenal is publicity and shame in order to garner public outrage on the side of the little guy. Most people have a sense of fairness and they also can see, hey, if it's happening to him, it could be happening to me.

[jberryhill]

35. No, she disagreed with it....

The Supreme Court generally considers "all the citizens of the United States at the mercy of whatever their state legislature decides" to be a lot of words for "democracy".

Our system of government requires participation to work right. In this instance, it looks like it certainly did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London#State_legislation_following_Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

"Prior to Kelo only eight states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington. By July 2007, 42 states had enacted some type of reform legislation in response to the Kelo decision. Of those 42 states, 21 enacted laws that severely inhibited the takings allowed by the Kelo decision, while the rest enacted laws that place some limits on the power of municipalities to invoke eminent domain for economic development. The remaining eight states have not passed laws to limit the power of eminent domain for economic development"

[hansberrym]

32. Which constitution do you think was interpreted?

Can it be irrelevant to the rest of the country how SCOTUS interpreted the 5th amendment?

[jberryhill]

34. Lots of SCOTUS interpretations set a lower floor than state laws, yes

Many states are more protective of the Fourth Amendment than Scotus is.

It's not that unusual.

And, in response to Kelo, several states tightened their eminent domain laws.

But, as I said... carry on...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London#State_legislation_following_Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

"Prior to Kelo only eight states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington. By July 2007, 42 states had enacted some type of reform legislation in response to the Kelo decision. Of those 42 states, 21 enacted laws that severely inhibited the takings allowed by the Kelo decision, while the rest enacted laws that place some limits on the power of municipalities to invoke eminent domain for economic development. The remaining eight states have not passed laws to limit the power of eminent domain for economic development"

So, yes, Kelo matters in eight - count 'em - eight states.

[Nikki Stone1]

33. We are all renters now thanks to that SC case.

Your land can be taken away for any business that wants it.

[jberryhill]

36. In 42 states, that statement is incorrect....

I guess you skipped over this part of the decision:

"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised."

[Nikki Stone1]

37. For now. The precedent has been set. Appeals to the Supreme Court are possible now.

It's only a matter of time.

[jberryhill]

38. What are you talking about?

If the state eminent domain law doesn't permit it, then what "precedent" are you talking about?

You sure aren't talking about the Kelo decision, which says right in it:

"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."

The POINT of the Kelo decision was whether that state's eminent domain law, which expressly permitted taking for this purpose, was constitutional. If the state law doesn't permit that kind of taking - and 42 states expressly forbid it, then could you explain who is going to be "appealing" what to the Supreme Court?