U.S. Supreme Court destroys the right to private property

[Guest guest]

" APFN " <apfn

Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:22:49 -0700

U.S. Supreme Court destroys the right to private property

 

 

 

 

U.S. Supreme Court destroys the right to private property

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=85787;title=APFN

 

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in Kelo v. City of New

London that local governments can seize private property for private

development even when that property is not " put into use for the

general public. "

 

Susette Kelo is a private homeowner in New London,

Connecticut. When she and several other neighborhood residents refused

to sell their property to the New London Development Corporation, a

private developer, the city used its power of eminent domain to

condemn the private homes and businesses.

 

Eminent domain is the legal authority for a governing body to

confiscate private property for public use, as outlined in the Fifth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

New London officials announced plans to raze the homes in

order to build high-end condominiums, a luxury hotel and several

office buildings, arguing that private development serves a public

interest in boosting economic growth.

 

Ed O'Connell, the lawyer for the New London Development

Corporation, told The New York Times, " We need to get housing at the

upper end, for people like the Pfizer employees. "

 

The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine if the Fifth

Amendment's " public use " requirement offered any protection for

individuals like Kelo whose property is being condemned for the sole

purpose of private economic development.

 

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court deferred to the city and

ruled against Kelo and other property owners. " The city has carefully

formulated a development plan that it believes will provide

appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to,

new jobs and increased tax revenue, " wrote Justice John Paul Stevens

in the majority opinion.

 

" In other words, the Court believes your property belongs to

the highest bidder, " said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen

Freedom Foundation (EFF). EFF was just one of a diverse group of

property rights and individual liberty activists who filed 25 " friend

of the court " amicus briefs with the Supreme Court urging the justices

to end the abuse of eminent domain.

 

" This decision is an unacceptable assault on the

constitutional right to private property, " said Williams. " It means

that no home, church or business is safe if government officials

decide they have a better use for the property. "

 

He continued: " This decision also disenfranchises poor and

middle class property owners who can't afford to defend their homes. "

 

" Public interest groups like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation

and the Institute for Justice will continue to fight for property

rights, but citizens must demand that their state legislatures pass

laws that ensure that every person's home is truly his or her castle, "

said Williams.

 

If the legislature does not take steps to protect property

rights, Williams warned that " the people must do so themselves at the

ballot box. "

 

Additional Information

Kelo v. City of New London

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

 

Kelo amicus brief

http://www.ij.org/pdf_folder/private_property/kelo/goldwater04.pdf

 

===========================

Reaction to Thursday's US Supreme Court eminent domain decision

Newsday, NY - 7 hours ago

... " I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is

definitely not the last word. " _

New London resident Bill Von Winkle, reacting to the Supreme

Court decision. ...

all 665 related »

============================

By James Vicini

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on

Thursday that a city can take a person's home for a development

project aimed at revitalizing a depressed local economy, a decision

that could have nationwide impact.

 

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London,

Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven

families for a development project that will complement a nearby

research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.

 

Under the U.S. Constitution, governments can take private

property through their so-called eminent domain powers in exchange for

just compensation, but only when it is for public use.

 

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews & storyID=8873080