Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

[TrueBeliever]

(You know, I used to think all those clowns ranting about "evil judges" were just mad because they didn't get their way in court. Now I realize that judges really ARE dangerous...)

WASHINGTON - 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. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.

The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on Monday.

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.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.

At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Connecticut resident Susette Kelo and others in the lawsuit pledged to continue their fight. Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."

New London once was a center for the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

[dchester]

Just remember, the conservatives judges (Renquist(sp), Scalia, & Thomas) along with O'Connor voted against this travesty. I read in another article how Clarence Thomas actually wrote his own disenting opinion because he didn't think O'Connor's disent was strong enough.
________
Chrysler E platform (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Chrysler_E_platform)

[Undertaker #59]

This is outrageous.

Your property is now for sale to the highest bidder if your town wants to make a little extra smack.

[RoadGrader]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
This is outrageous.

Your property is now for sale to the highest bidder if your town wants to make a little extra smack.

UT......

although I admit to not having read, in detail, everything surrounding this ruling, on its face it appears to be a narrow, urban issue.

doesn't take away any stink from the issue but it may put it into perspective.

I would not be concerned as much about this ruling affecting my rights as a homeowner in a small town since there are less layers of bureaucracy between your property and the local officials.

having served as an elected Town official I can tell you first hand that you don't want to take a sh!t in your own bed.

[spiderman]

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

This is great. I propose a nice marble sculpture of the 10 Commandmants for the lobby as well.

[thomas144]

Why is the principle of eminent domain news to people?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
Why is the principle of eminent domain news to people?

Are you being serious, or are you just screwing around?

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman
Are you being serious, or are you just screwing around?

Both. I'm trying to understand why people think this ruling was interesting. Did you think your property is a sovereign nation?

[BizarroAnnihilus]

Originally posted by thomas144
Both. I'm trying to understand why people think this ruling was interesting. Did you think your property is a sovereign nation?

That's a great sentence (not the point, but the choice of words).

Man, Thomas.....Annihilus bets that people hated to go up against you in speech & debate in highschool.

Didn't they?

[thomas144]

Originally posted by Annihilus
That's a great sentence (not the point, but the choice of words).

Man, Thomas.....Annihilus bets that people hated to go up against you in speech & debate in highschool.

Didn't they?

No, not really. I went to an elite prep school. Friends of mine went on to become lawyers and law professors. Not me.

What point are you referring to?

[bideau]

Originally posted by thomas144
Both. I'm trying to understand why people think this ruling was interesting. Did you think your property is a sovereign nation?

Until this ruling, your property could only be taken by the government if it was needed for a project which would benefit the entire community. An example was the building of I-190 in the late 70's. Property in Leominster was taken. Landowners contested it in court. The court ruled that the highway project qualified since it was beneficial to the entire community.

The new ruling dramatically changes the definition. The land in New Hampshire is being taken to support a private development on the premise that future taxes will be beneficial to the community. This opens the door for any private venture, in cooperation with town/state/federal government, to argue that future tax payments and employment make the project beneficial to the community. Many argue that future taxes and employment benefits are iffy propositions at best. What happends if the developer, now in posession of valuable land, changes its mind and/or sells the property for less beneficial types of development (i.e. housing subdivision).

It's a risky ruling at best.

[thomas144]

I don't see this as being in anyway different than your house being purchased to build a highway or a railroad or an airport or a school or a hospital. There is always someone with an economic interest in seeing it done.

[TrueBeliever]

Originally posted by thomas144
There is always someone with an economic interest in seeing it done.

Yes, but the question is, is it in the best interest of everyone (like a road would be) or just a developer (as a shopping center would be, as in the New London case)?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
Both. I'm trying to understand why people think this ruling was interesting.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The key phrase being public use. This is what makes this ruling interesting. Do you consider tax collection to be public use? I always interpreted public use to be the construction of roads, or infrastructure which is necessary for the good of society. I think that the taking of ones private property by another private individual which may/may not result in added tax revenue for the city/state/country is controversial to say the least.

Originally posted by thomas144
Did you think your property is a sovereign nation?

Shouldn't ownership mean something? If one doesn't believe in the concept of home/land ownership, how can one believe in the concept of sovereignty?

[TrueBeliever]

Originally posted by thomas144
Did you think your property is a sovereign nation?

I'm don't mean to resort to name-calling, but this is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen.

This country was built on the idea that government should serve the people, not the other way around. Half the reason the colonists were pissed off and started the revolution was that the British felt that because they were in charge they had the right to seize your property for whatever reason they felt like at the moment. It didn't belong to YOU, it belonged to THE KING. You were just a caretaker, essentially.

One of the most sacred rights we as Americans cherish is that we own our own land, and the government can't just take it to do whatever they want with. At least, until this ruling.

Tearing down homes to put up a shopping center to generate tax revenue is really stretching the definition of "public good." Hopefully more states will enact their own legislation to make sure this doesn't happen anywhere else, lest Wal-Mart just stroll into town and say, "Well this lot looks like a good place for our new store" and then force the people who have lived there for generations out of their homes.

So in summary, is your property a sovreign nation? Of course not. But should the town board have the right to kick you off your property to put up a shopping center? Of course not.

[thomas144]

The issue is who decides what is public use, not whether the government has the right to seize your property through eminent domain.

If you live in the United States, practically by definition the United States government has the right to seize your land for public use, through the principal of eminent domain.

The constitution guarantees that you will be compensated if the government seizes your property for public use.

So who decides what is public use? Should that be decided by local government and courts, or should the supreme court, or the president, or the congress decide every case on a case-by-case basis?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
The issue is who decides what is public use, not whether the government has the right to seize your property through eminent domain.

I think we are all in agreement about that as has been previously stated.

Originally posted by thomas144
If you live in the United States, practically by definition the United States government has the right to seize your land for public use, through the principal of eminent domain.

Agreed.

Originally posted by thomas144
The constitution guarantees that you will be compensated if the government seizes your property for public use.

Once again, agreed.

Originally posted by thomas144
So who decides what is public use? Should that be decided by local government and courts, or should the supreme court, or the president, or the congress decide every case on a case-by-case basis?

Exactly, that's the issue.

Do you consider - private commercial development for profit - an accurate definition of public use?

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman
Do you consider - private commercial development for profit - an accurate definition of public use? [/B]

You mean like, the railroads?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
You mean like, the railroads?

I see a few differences between the construction of a railroad and the construction of a shopping mall.

One has to seize property out of necessity, the other does not.

This is just one of many differences that I see.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman
I see a few differences between the construction of a railroad and the construction of a shopping mall.

One has to seize property out of necessity, the other does not.

This is just one of many differences that I see.

Yes, well I can see that whether we should sieze that land over there next to the hospital and near the railroad tracks from those old people to build an office park is an issue that could end up in the courts and be argued all the way to the supreme court...

oh wait, they just did rule on this...

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
Yes, well I can see that whether we should sieze that land over there next to the hospital and near the railroad tracks from those old people to build an office park is an issue that could end up in the courts and be argued all the way to the supreme court...

oh wait, they just did rule on this...

So, is your position that the government should be able to seize anyone's land at anytime for any reason?

[Undertaker #59]

Man to try to seize home of Supreme Court justice

By Dan Whitcomb
Wed Jun 29, 4:10 PM ET



LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California man, angry over a U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding government power to take private property, says he will try to use the ruling to seize the New Hampshire home of Justice David Souter and convert it into a hotel to be named the Lost Liberty Hotel.

Souter voted with the 5-4 majority last week when the Supreme Court ruled a Connecticut city could use its powers of eminent domain to take private homes to make way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

The justices said the project served a public purpose of revitalizing a depressed local economy, but critics have called the ruling an unprecedented expansion of the powers of government to seize private property in America.

"This is a serious project and if we get enough money from investors we will proceed with it," said Logan Darrow Clements, who runs a California video production company called Freestar Media that he said is dedicated to exposing abuses of power.

"It's solely for the purpose of showing (Souter) that his decision was unjust," he said. "We hope to make a profit as well but I don't agree with eminent domain so the irony is that we are going to use eminent domain against him."

Clements said he had contacted officials in Weare, New Hampshire, for an application to build a hotel on the property where the Supreme Court justice's home now stands, arguing that a hotel would increase tax revenue and provide an economic boost.

He said the hotel would be called the Lost Liberty Hotel and would include a restaurant called the Just Desserts Cafe and a museum with a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America.

He said instead of a Gideon's Bible, each room would include a copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," which many people embrace as a treatise on liberty and self-determination.

"This is not a prank," he said. "The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land (from Justice Souter) we can begin our hotel development."

The Supreme Court had no comment on Clements' plan and the Weare Board of Selectmen could not immediately be reached for comment.

[TrueBeliever]

Sweet... :thumb:

[RoadGrader]

I wonder if Souter would appeal an unfavorable local decision regarding his property all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court? :thumb:

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman
So, is your position that the government should be able to seize anyone's land at anytime for any reason?

yes, just like the president can pretty much go to war at anytime for any reason. why vote if you don't want to allow the "government" to do anything? who do you think the "government" is anyway?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
yes,

Wow, that's scary.

Originally posted by thomas144
just like the president can pretty much go to war at anytime for any reason.

- Is it possible to have a discussion without this popping up?

Originally posted by thomas144
why vote if you don't want to allow the "government" to do anything?

I never said that I don't want to allow the government to do anything, but I don't think it's a radical idea to preserve eminent domain for those instances when the seizing of land is unavoidable (i.e. building a railroad). You can't build a railroad without seizing land, but you can build a Walmart somewhere else. I think that "owning" a piece of property should mean something, and would certainly be p*ssed off if some developer worked out a deal with a bunch of corrupt politicians and had me thrown off my land. Not to mention compensating me with about 75% of what my house is actually worth.

Originally posted by thomas144
who do you think the "government" is anyway?

It is a government "of the people". As I said, we need railroads, highways, etc. in order to have a productive and successful country, in order to build this infrastructure "seizing land" is a necessary evil, however, seizing land to build a Wal-mart is an abuse of power in my book.

[thomas144]

[i]
It is a government "of the people". As I said, we need railroads, highways, etc. in order to have a productive and successful country, in order to build this infrastructure "seizing land" is a necessary evil, however, seizing land to build a Wal-mart is an abuse of power in my book. [/B]

You think railroads and highways, etc. are necessary. That's nice. Both railroads and highways were at one time purely commercial ventures.

How are what you think is okay different than what someone else might think is okay?

The difference is that you think it's okay?

So it's okay to seize property through eminent domain as long as Spiderman thinks it's okay?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
You think railroads and highways, etc. are necessary. That's nice. Both railroads and highways were at one time purely commercial ventures.
I'm not arguing that it wasn't a commercial venture, but you CAN'T build a railroad without taking someone's land, but you CAN build a Wal-Mart SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!

Originally posted by thomas144
How are what you think is okay different than what someone else might think is okay?
What? It's called a difference of opinion I guess.

Originally posted by thomas144
The difference is that you think it's okay?
:confused: okay...

Originally posted by thomas144
So it's okay to seize property through eminent domain as long as Spiderman thinks it's okay?
That's not what I'm saying, and you know it.

I think it's okay to use Eminent Domain only in those situations where it is agreed upon that the project (i.e. building a railroad) will be beneficial to the public as a whole, and where the seizing of property is a necessary and unavoidable evil.

I view a railroad as "public good" because little Sally will be able to use this railroad to visit her grandmother and Farmer Ted will be able to use this railroad to transport his livestock. You cannot build a railroad without taking someone's land, so in this instance it qualifies.

You could argue that the Wal-Mart is public good, because it provides necessary products at a cheap price, but it doesn't fulfill the first qualification stated above. Building a Wal-Mart does not necessitate the taking of one's land against their will.

I do not view the taking of an individuals land against their will for commercial development as justified, if the citizens are already paying their fair share of taxes to support the government in the first place (the land isn't blighted), and there is other commercially zoned land available for this purpose.

It will be interesting to see what this increased tax revenue ends up paying for, can you say raises for all government employees anyone???

[thomas144]

I would probably not personally vote to seize land in order to build a Walmart, although it's such a hypothetical question, it's really hard to address a hypothetical case, and really is up to the local government (which is what the Supreme Court ruled).

I don't know how anyone can argue that building a railroad or a highway is a necessary evil. What is necessary about having a railroad? (or a highway?).

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
I would probably not personally vote to seize land in order to build a Walmart, although it's such a hypothetical question, it's really hard to address a hypothetical case, and really is up to the local government (which is what the Supreme Court ruled).

Not really, the Supreme Court upheld the local governments ruling based upon the fact that developing the site commercially would result in greater tax revenue, then was being generated from the home owners.

They didn't just say that it was okay for the local government to take the land because it is their inherent right to do so (which is what you are implying).

Originally posted by thomas144
I don't know how anyone can argue that building a railroad or a highway is a necessary evil. What is necessary about having a railroad? (or a highway?).

Is that what I said? NOPE!

I said that taking the land is a necessary evil with regards to building a railroad. I didn't say that building a railroad is a necessary evil.

But I realize you are being the typical thomas144isoncrack ball-buster here and refuse to get sucked in any further. Obviously you know how critical it is to have a highway/railway system in this country.

peace.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman

They didn't just say that it was okay for the local government to take the land because it is their inherent right to do so (which is what you are implying).


It is the inherent right of the government to seize the land for public use. The issue is what is public use, not whether they have the right.

I just don't understand why people think this is a big deal, or even really newsworthy.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
It is the inherent right of the government to seize the land for public use. The issue is what is public use, not whether they have the right.

No, the right of eminent domain is an inherent right that is restrained by the constitution. Your statement made no mention of public use, you simply said it was up to the local government. It isn't, which is why it went to the Supreme Court, and it is why I corrected you.

Originally posted by thomas144
I just don't understand why people think this is a big deal, or even really newsworthy.

Yes, you already said this, but now you are just being difficult. You know why it's a big deal, but you get enjoyment out of aggravating people on message boards by this whole "playing dumb" routine.

I guess that makes me the sucker. :shrug:

[TrueBeliever]

thomas, I am completely against the war in Iraq, but that really doesn't have anything to do with this. Much as I'd love to blame Bush for this as well, I can't. It was the Supreme Court that did this one.

[thomas144]

[i]

Yes, you already said this, but now you are just being difficult. You know why it's a big deal, but you get enjoyment out of aggravating people on message boards by this whole "playing dumb" routine.

I guess that makes me the sucker. :shrug: [/B]

Does it ever occur to you that I hear people on TV or on NECN talking about this and I wonder "what's the big deal?" so I post in this political forum asking "what's the big deal? didn't you know that the government can seize your land?"

I feel like I am trying to explain to someone that the world is not flat.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by TrueBeliever
thomas, I am completely against the war in Iraq, but that really doesn't have anything to do with this. Much as I'd love to blame Bush for this as well, I can't. It was the Supreme Court that did this one.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't disagree with the Supreme Court ruling whatsoever. What does Bush have to do with this anyway?

[thomas144]

Originally posted by spiderman
No, the right of eminent domain is an inherent right that is restrained by the constitution. Your statement made no mention of public use, you simply said it was up to the local government. It isn't, which is why it went to the Supreme Court, and it is why I corrected you.



Where is the principal of eminent domain restrained by the constitution? The constitution only clarifies that people must be compensated. Eminent domain is an assumption of any sovereign nation, practically by definition.

My understanding of this ruling is that the Supreme Court has said it's up to local government. I believe they allow the states to pass laws "restraining" it. If you think this is a problem you should be trying to get state laws enacted that prohibit the government from seizing land to build Walmarts.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
Where is the principal of eminent domain restrained by the constitution?

You said it yourself.

It is the inherent right of the government to seize the land for public use.

Eminent Domain is to be used for public use, that is the restraint as stated in the Constitution.

Originally posted by thomas144
The constitution only clarifies that people must be compensated. Eminent domain is an assumption of any sovereign nation, practically by definition.

No my friend, why is it that sometimes you mention for public use and then when it doesn't fit your argument you ignore it, and forget that you've already mentioned it?

Originally posted by thomas144
My understanding of this ruling is that the Supreme Court has said it's up to local government. I believe they allow the states to pass laws "restraining" it. If you think this is a problem you should be trying to get state laws enacted that prohibit the government from seizing land to build Walmarts.

It has already begun.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/30/national/w140245D82.DTL

[spiderman]

Originally posted by thomas144
Does it ever occur to you that I hear people on TV or on NECN talking about this and I wonder "what's the big deal?" so I post in this political forum asking "what's the big deal? didn't you know that the government can seize your land?"

I've tried repeatedly to explain to you what the big deal is, you seem to be the only person in the world who doesn't get it. This leads me to believe that you are either too dim-witted to fully understand the ruling, or you are just doing one of your typical things where you screw around and try to make yourself laugh over the frustrations of others.

Something tells me it's the latter, the way you keep bringing this argument around full circle, only to start it all over again.

Originally posted by thomas144
I feel like I am trying to explain to someone that the world is not flat.

WOW! That's exactly how I feel. :thumb:

[TrueBeliever]

Originally posted by thomas144
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't disagree with the Supreme Court ruling whatsoever. What does Bush have to do with this anyway?

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

[Undertaker #59]

Congress Working on Property-Seizure Bills Fri Jul 1, 7:59 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Reacting to a recent Supreme Court decision, lawmakers are moving to make it more difficult for local governments to seize private property that stands in the way of shopping malls and other commercial development.

The House approved by a 231-189 vote a bid by conservative Scott Garrett, R-N.J., to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development.

"They're going to have to find their own money, instead of coming to Washington," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said after Thursday's vote.

In a 5-4 ruling last week, the Supreme Court said municipalities have broad power to bulldoze people's homes and put up shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as favoring rich corporations.

Legislation in the works also would ban the use of federal funds for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.) decision.

Susette Kelo, whose riverfront house in New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood is set to be razed, said she's glad politicians in Washington are working against the decision.

"I think the people in this country are outraged in this decision, and rightly so," she said. "Everyone in this country has just lost the right to own their own property."

Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., mentioned community development block grants as one type of money source that would be banned for projects advancing as a result of the Kelo decision.

The grant program provides money to more than 1,000 municipalities for everything from lead abatement in old buildings to improving water and sewage facilities.

Sensenbrenner and the committee's top Democrat, Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, are drafting legislation that would prevent Washington from claiming eminent domain for economic development and block any state or local government from getting federal funds for projects

Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, introduced a similar bill on Monday, with a House companion introduced by Rep. Dennis Rehberg (news, bio, voting record), R-Mont. The Supreme Court has overturned other congressional attempts to supersede its decisions.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California says she is opposed to any legislation that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

___

On the Net:

Information on the Senate bill, S. 1313, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Information on the Senate bill, S. 1313, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

The URL is kind of ironic, no?

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by spiderman
You can't build a railroad without seizing land, but you can build a Walmart somewhere else.

Spidey,

I'm not sure I understand why building a railroad necessitates the siezure of land.

You argue that the Walmart can be located elsewhere, why can't the railroad be moved?

If some individual owns a piece of land and does not wish to sell, why isn't it possible to simply run the railroad around this property?

I'm sure there may be instances where that one parcel of land is essential to building a railroad, but that isn't necessarily the case at all times.

Thomas is right that the SC hasn't established anything new here. Governments have always had the functional "right" to sieze land for just about any use they wanted.

This has been used for years for various urban renewal projects.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by O_P_T
Spidey,

I'm not sure I understand why building a railroad necessitates the siezure of land.

You argue that the Walmart can be located elsewhere, why can't the railroad be moved?

Constructing a railroad is a completely different animal then constructing a shopping center. I don't feel that anything more needs to be said about this, the differences are so painfully obvious it's frightening.

Originally posted by O_P_T
If some individual owns a piece of land and does not wish to sell, why isn't it possible to simply run the railroad around this property?

It is to a point, for example you wouldn't try to get the city of NY to tear down the Empire State Building in order to run a railroad track, but in some instances the best case scenario may be to take over someone's property. Keep in mind that we are talking in very general terms here.

Originally posted by O_P_T
I'm sure there may be instances where that one parcel of land is essential to building a railroad, but that isn't necessarily the case at all times.

Agreed. I'm not arguing against that.

Originally posted by O_P_T
Thomas is right that the SC hasn't established anything new here. Governments have always had the functional "right" to sieze land for just about any use they wanted.

This has been used for years for various urban renewal projects.

I'm not going to address this any further. I've had my fill of this thread for a while.

[BuckWild]

Originally posted by O_P_T
Spidey,

I'm not sure I understand why building a railroad necessitates the siezure of land.

You argue that the Walmart can be located elsewhere, why can't the railroad be moved?

If some individual owns a piece of land and does not wish to sell, why isn't it possible to simply run the railroad around this property?

I'm sure there may be instances where that one parcel of land is essential to building a railroad, but that isn't necessarily the case at all times.

Thomas is right that the SC hasn't established anything new here. Governments have always had the functional "right" to sieze land for just about any use they wanted.

This has been used for years for various urban renewal projects.

OPT, me thinks that the difference lies in the eventual affect on the cost to the end user. The end user here being defined as the general public.

The cost to the general public is much greater when moving a railroad five miles than the cost in moving a Walmart the same distance.

The cost of moving the railroad has a much broader affect due to the variety of goods, with many different applications, being transported. The increased cost of moving the railroad is then ultimately passed along to the consumers every where.

Now moving a Walmart only applies specifically in the sense that a single Walmart store will have little are no effect outside of its' immediate audience. Little is to be gained publically by insisting that a Walmart be built in location A, previously private property, versus five miles away at location B, an open tract of available commercial property. The same can not be said for the moving of a railroad.

BuckWild!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by BuckWild
OPT, me thinks that the difference lies in the eventual affect on the cost to the end user. The end user here being defined as the general public.

The cost to the general public is much greater when moving a railroad five miles than the cost in moving a Walmart the same distance.

The cost of moving the railroad has a much broader affect due to the variety of goods, with many different applications, being transported. The increased cost of moving the railroad is then ultimately passed along to the consumers every where.

Now moving a Walmart only applies specifically in the sense that a single Walmart store will have little are no effect outside of its' immediate audience. Little is to be gained publically by insisting that a Walmart be built in location A, previously private property, versus five miles away at location B, an open tract of available commercial property. The same can not be said for the moving of a railroad.

BuckWild!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not necessarily.

Any large shopping center will generate a reasonable amount of traffic.

If lot A is located adjacent to existing major roads, and lot B is on back roads, then the impact on the community will be far less for lot A than B.

Now I fully recognize that there are impacts if one is forced to alter the route of a railroad, interstate, etc.

However, this is done routinely to avoid wetlands or other "special" property types.

My issue with Spidey's post was that he seemed to be suggesting that everytime one built a railroad, someone's land had to be taken by emminant domain.

Before any land is siezed, an offer is made to buy it by the developer/government. Emminant domain is only invoked if someone refuses to sell.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by O_P_T
My issue with Spidey's post was that he seemed to be suggesting that everytime one built a railroad, someone's land had to be taken by emminant domain.

Okay, I'll clarify since that wasn't what I meant, but I can see how you could take it that way.

What I meant was, when building a railroad, there may come a time when taking someone's land is unavoidable, or not taking there land and re-routing is highly undesirable. I think you agree with me here.

But I just can't put the building of shopping center in the same realm. There is always plenty of commercial space available in and around any city, to displace an entire community is a total travesty. The Supreme Court decision scares me because I hope I never face a time when I would be forced out of my home, compensated modestly, and then forced to find a new home in another area, just so that we can have another 'Target' to shop at. That isn't what America is all about in my book. This is why I'm honestly trying to remove myself from this argument. Nothing anyone can say will make me feel any different, so there is no sense in me participating any further in this discussion.

The only reason I hung for as long as I did was simply to give Thomas maybe just a hint as to why someone might have a problem with this, since he said he didn't get it. I wasn't necessarily trying to change his opinion, only trying to get him to maybe see why someone might be against this decision.

[BuckWild]

Originally posted by O_P_T
Not necessarily.

Any large shopping center will generate a reasonable amount of traffic.

If lot A is located adjacent to existing major roads, and lot B is on back roads, then the impact on the community will be far less for lot A than B.

Now I fully recognize that there are impacts if one is forced to alter the route of a railroad, interstate, etc.

However, this is done routinely to avoid wetlands or other "special" property types.

My issue with Spidey's post was that he seemed to be suggesting that everytime one built a railroad, someone's land had to be taken by emminant domain.

Before any land is siezed, an offer is made to buy it by the developer/government. Emminant domain is only invoked if someone refuses to sell.

Point taken.

I think the publicity this issue is receiving is due in large part to the fear of some that this power will some how be abused to benefit no one but the large corporate world. Thomas may actually be correct in stating that this reaction is unwarranted due to the fact that the law, in and of itself, is nothing new. But on the flip side it is easy to argue that the only thing that keeps this law from being abused is the voicing of concern from the general public. Silence denotes atleast some form of exceptance, and screaming after your house has been taking does nothing to save your house.

[BuckWild]

Originally posted by spiderman
Okay, I'll clarify since that wasn't what I meant, but I can see how you could take it that way.

What I meant was, when building a railroad, there may come a time when taking someone's land is unavoidable, or not taking there land and re-routing is highly undesirable. I think you agree with me here.

But I just can't put the building of shopping center in the same realm. There is always plenty of commercial space available in and around any city, to displace an entire community is a total travesty. The Supreme Court decision scares me because I hope I never face a time when I would be forced out of my home, compensated modestly, and then forced to find a new home in another area, just so that we can have another 'Target' to shop at. That isn't what America is all about in my book. This is why I'm honestly trying to remove myself from this argument. Nothing anyone can say will make me feel any different, so there is no sense in me participating any further in this discussion.

The only reason I hung for as long as I did was simply to give Thomas maybe just a hint as to why someone might have a problem with this, since he said he didn't get it. I wasn't necessarily trying to change his opinion, only trying to get him to maybe see why someone might be against this decision.

I don't think you need to leave Spidey. I believe that your argument has many merits. Not the least of which is the argument against the belief that the government should be allowed to sacrifice the rights of the individual to support some greater societal good, this STINKS of blatant socialism. How many steps are there from taking my property to social engineering by dictating my career path by what the government considers in the best interest of society as a whole, regardless of my personal desires?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by BuckWild
I don't think you need to leave Spidey.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm nice and comfortable in these here parts.

There just comes a time when I feel that I've pretty much said everything I want to say, and anything further just becomes redundant. I feel that my participation in this argument has reached that point.

[BuckWild]

Originally posted by spiderman
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm nice and comfortable in these here parts.

There just comes a time when I feel that I've pretty much said everything I want to say, and anything further just becomes redundant. I feel that my participation in this argument has reached that point.

True and accepted. All too often I find that discussions like these actually lead no where for those who care not to be open to alternative ideas.

I think I shall join you in leaving for now.

[O_P_T]

Just for clarification, I wasn't thrilled with the SC decision.

The whole question of where the line between "public good" and "private interests" lies is a valid one.

The sad fact is that the existing precidents on this topic don't favor the individual.

[EYEAM4ANARCHY]

I think that Justice O'connor summed it up perfectly in her dissenting opinion: (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/000/04-108.html)

Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.


Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

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.

A second proposed limitation is implicit in the Court's opinion. The logic of today's decision is that eminent domain may only be used to upgrade--not downgrade--property. At best this makes the Public Use Clause redundant with the Due Process Clause, which already prohibits irrational government action. See Lingle, 544 U. S. __. The Court rightfully admits, however, that the judiciary cannot get bogged down in predictive judgments about whether the public will actually be better off after a property transfer. In any event, this constraint has no realistic import. For who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. Cf. Bugryn v. Bristol, 63 Conn. App. 98, 774 A. 2d 1042 (2001) (taking the homes and farm of four owners in their 70's and 80's and giving it to an "industrial park"); 99 Cents Only Stores v. Lancaster Redevelopment Authority, 237 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (CD Cal. 2001) (attempted taking of 99 Cents store to replace with a Costco); Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit, 410 Mich. 616, 304 N. W. 2d 455 (1981) (taking a working-class, immigrant community in Detroit and giving it to a General Motors assembly plant), overruled by County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 415, 684 N. W. 2d 765 (2004); Brief for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty as Amicus Curiae 4-11 (describing takings of religious institutions' properties); Institute for Justice, D. Berliner, Public Power, Private Gain: A Five-Year, State-by-State Report Examining the Abuse of Eminent Domain (2003) (collecting accounts of economic development takings).

The Court also puts special emphasis on facts peculiar to this case: The NLDC's plan is the product of a relatively careful deliberative process; it proposes to use eminent domain for a multipart, integrated plan rather than for isolated property transfer; it promises an array of incidental benefits (even aesthetic ones), not just increased tax revenue; it comes on the heels of a legislative determination that New London is a depressed municipality. See, e.g., ante, at 16 ("[A] one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case"). Justice Kennedy, too, takes great comfort in these facts. Ante, at 4 (concurring opinion). But none has legal significance to blunt the force of today's holding. If legislative prognostications about the secondary public benefits of a new use can legitimate a taking, there is nothing in the Court's rule or in Justice Kennedy's gloss on that rule to prohibit property transfers generated with less care, that are less comprehensive, that happen to result from less elaborate process, whose only projected advantage is the incidence of higher taxes, or that hope to transform an already prosperous city into an even more prosperous one.

Finally, in a coda, the Court suggests that property owners should turn to the States, who may or may not choose to impose appropriate limits on economic development takings. Ante, at 19. This is an abdication of our responsibility. States play many important functions in our system of dual sovereignty, but compensating for our refusal to enforce properly the Federal Constitution (and a provision meant to curtail state action, no less) is not among them.


Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party.

What this does is leave the interpretation of what constitutes public use upto the local legislatures. They are the ones who decide if the community will benefit from the use of eminent domain and if they decide that to be the case it is considered valid "public use". Those decisions can be based on something as specious as the idea that your house is ugly or the simple idea that someone else can generate more of a profit for the city, county, etc. Property ownership is no longer a right, it is a priveledge extended, and easily revoked, by the government.

[B A Rabbit]

Take that, Justice Souter.

Date published: 7/3/2005

Any 'takings' takers?

SHORTLY AFTER the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision on property rights, Logan Darrow Clements faxed the code-enforcement administrator of the town of Weare, N.H., asking for permission to "redevelop" property located at 34 Cilley Hill Road. That happens to be the home of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who voted with the majority on Kelo to whack personal-property liberties

Mr. Clements hopes to bring economic growth to the town with his project, the Lost Liberty Hotel, featuring the Just Desserts Cafe and a museum dedicated to the decline of freedom in America. Instead of a Bible, hotel rooms would include a copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Mr. Clements claims he isn't joking. "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter, we can begin our hotel development," he says.

Via phone on Friday, Mr. Clements' office verified he is now raising capital for his venture. Who wants to invest?

http://www.cinematical.com/images/2005/06/vforvendetta.jpg

click me (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/072005/07032005/112081)

[SmashmouthD]

Originally posted by TrueBeliever
I'm don't mean to resort to name-calling, but this is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen.

This country was built on the idea that government should serve the people, not the other way around. Half the reason the colonists were pissed off and started the revolution was that the British felt that because they were in charge they had the right to seize your property for whatever reason they felt like at the moment. It didn't belong to YOU, it belonged to THE KING. You were just a caretaker, essentially.

One of the most sacred rights we as Americans cherish is that we own our own land, and the government can't just take it to do whatever they want with. At least, until this ruling.

Tearing down homes to put up a shopping center to generate tax revenue is really stretching the definition of "public good." Hopefully more states will enact their own legislation to make sure this doesn't happen anywhere else, lest Wal-Mart just stroll into town and say, "Well this lot looks like a good place for our new store" and then force the people who have lived there for generations out of their homes.

So in summary, is your property a sovreign nation? Of course not. But should the town board have the right to kick you off your property to put up a shopping center? Of course not.

I know this is an old issue, but you've expressed the problem with this ruling as well as anyone.

It is basically Anti-American, and is just one more ruling that lessons our freedoms and rights as Americans.

[spiderman]

Here is the latest example.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/28/EDGSHDU0R11.DTL

[#54]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186120,00.html

Monday, February 27, 2006
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — Banks give away millions of dollars in charitable donations and loan guarantees to the underserved each year, but BB&T may have just become the first bank in recent memory to withhold money from developers who don't line up with the bank's view of eminent domain law.

The North Carolina-based bank, which employs more than 28,000 people in 1,400 branches in 11 states, announced last month that it would no longer approve loans for developers who want to pursue commercial enterprises on land seized by the government using the power of eminent domain, or taking private property for public use.

The announcement was a reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last June in Kelo v. City of New London. The court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Connecticut town's right to take land for private development if its use was deemed in the public interest.

In a Jan. 25 release, BB&T executives stated their disapproval of the court's ruling.

"One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own," said BB&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison, a noted libertarian. "As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won't help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership."

Experts who watch financial institutions and philanthropy for a living say this is the first time they've seen a bank take such a stand.

"It's interesting, because the bank itself, apparently without pressure, is taking a position in this area where they actually can have some influence," said Bob Huberty of the Capital Research Center, which follows corporate giving trends.

"I'm delighted," said Roger Pilon, head of legal studies for the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. "It's very unusual for a private company to stand up for principle and I commend it for it, being that it's doing it at a cost to itself. It's a hopeful sign."

Company officials said they expected a small loss of business, but have been pleasantly surprised at the overwhelming feedback.

"Ninety-nine point eight percent of it has been positive," said BB&T spokesman Bob Dedham. "We've had a thousand internal responses from our employees … supporting our decision, saying how proud they are to be an employee of the bank, how good it makes them feel."

Allison has shaped the company's philosophy to reflect core values of ethics, justice, honesty and free enterprise, said Dedham. The BB&T Charitable Foundation contributes money to business schools at colleges and universities across the country, hoping to instill the idea that ethical and moral decision-making are inseparable from capitalist endeavors.

"My sense is that John and the bank are very dedicated to ethical behavior in corporations in general, not just the bank," said Claude Lilly, dean of the Belk College of Business at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "I think this (announcement) is just a part of the process that the bank has gone through in developing its own philosophy,"

But not everyone thinks the philosophy is a good one, and not everyone disagrees with the high court's ruling in Kelo v. New London.

"(It's) a rush to judgment without reflection or public discussion or debate," said Donald Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities, which considers the taking of land for public and private use a tool of last resort, but one that can transform blighted neighborhoods into functional communities.

"For a bank to make a blanket policy in response to what is clearly an emotional issue concerns us, because it doesn't take into account that [eminent domain] is used by cities trying to strengthen and provide opportunities for the broader community," he said.

So far, no other bank has followed BB&T into the fray of the eminent domain debate. In fact, withholding loans to applicants who don’t share the bank's ideology, philosophy or politics is pretty much unseen. Civil rights laws would preclude many such cases, Huberty surmised.

"You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, gender, disability. … It never occurred to lawmakers that you would discriminate on a loan because the developer is using land taken by eminent domain, though," he said.

Huberty added that activist groups have been successful in wringing thousands of dollars in contributions out of institutions through protests and boycott threats. Special interest groups all over the spectrum would love for banks to tailor lending practices according to their own agendas. For years, pressure has been put on banks to do so, but institutions have not been forthcoming, he said.

"That would be their dream come true if the bank itself were to say 'no, this plant will contribute to global warming so we are not going to support it.' But that is not the case. Normally, banks retreat behind 'we have our rules and so forth,'" Huberty said.

Bill Grassano, spokesman of the Independent Community Bankers of America said it's nothing new for banks and other financial institutions to give loans and grants for programs benefiting low-income entrepreneurs, homeowners and community-based education and training efforts in and outside the country, and not all of that giving is the result of a twisted arm or strategic public relations.

Grassano said he has not heard of any other bank taking a stand against eminent domain, but his association's nearly 5,000 affiliated banks make decisions everyday with their communities in mind — that includes lending as well as charitable donations.

"Community banks help those communities grow, they move them move forward," said Grassano "That's probably how they make their decisions."

Observers agree it's premature to predict whether BB&T is starting a trend among banks.

"Their job, rightly or wrongly, is to maximize returns for shareholders," said Pilon. BB&T's decision is "probably an anomaly."

Borut said that BB&T's decision is shortsighted, as projects that could ease unemployment and poverty in deadend neighborhoods could be thwarted if other banks take similar stands against eminent domain.

"[They're] not taking into account individual circumstances, and that's something I think they need to do."

[freak]

Originally posted by TrueBeliever
(You know, I used to think all those clowns ranting about "evil judges" were just mad because they didn't get their way in court. Now I realize that judges really ARE dangerous...)

Thank you, Marbury v Madison.

[freak]

Originally posted by thomas144
Both. I'm trying to understand why people think this ruling was interesting. Did you think your property is a sovereign nation?

Excuse me, but this country is founded on the priciples of personal liberty, and government deriving it's power from the people. The govt doesn't grant property rights.....it's a given.

[mikiemo83]

Originally posted by freak
Excuse me, but this country is founded on the priciples of personal liberty, and government deriving it's power from the people. The govt doesn't grant property rights.....it's a given. no, you can own the land but to develop it you need the approval of the local and possibly the state and federal government, they grant you the right to develop that land after you have met their guidelines.

without takings there would be no interstates and many other luxuries we take for granted. the key is to fight for a fair payment for land taken including any hardships that may occur from those takings

[freak]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California says she is opposed to any legislation that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."


Hey Nancy, it's YOUR job (read: Congress) to keep checks on the Supreme Court.

[freak]

Originally posted by mikiemo83
no, you can own the land but to develop it you need the approval of the local and possibly the state and federal government, they grant you the right to develop that land after you have met their guidelines.

without takings there would be no interstates and many other luxuries we take for granted. the key is to fight for a fair payment for land taken including any hardships that may occur from those takings

No. Govts, thru the consent of the people, regulate HOW land may be used. Hence, the regs and guidelines. But property rights do NOT come FROM government.

[mikiemo83]

Originally posted by freak
No. Govts, thru the consent of the people, regulate HOW land may be used. Hence, the regs and guidelines. But property rights do NOT come FROM government. yes you are correct, but in reality the government runs a different route than the Guidelines and any defiance to their direction ties the project up and often derails it. So they may not Regulate it but they sure as hell control it.

[dchester]

Originally posted by mikiemo83
no, you can own the land but to develop it you need the approval of the local and possibly the state and federal government, they grant you the right to develop that land after you have met their guidelines.

without takings there would be no interstates and many other luxuries we take for granted. the key is to fight for a fair payment for land taken including any hardships that may occur from those takings It's just that in this case, the property wasn't seized to make a highway, or some other resource. The land was taken so some land developer could build condos and a shopping mall. The town justified it by saying they would get more tax revenue from the new development that they currently do.

This means that if some town wants more tax money, all they have to do is take your property and then find a developer to knock down your house and build a bigger house to get the town more tax money. I find this completely outrageous and very distasteful.
________
Dodge Viper specifications (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_Viper)

[mikiemo83]

Originally posted by dchester
It's just that in this case, the property wasn't seized to make a highway, or some other resource. The land was taken so some land developer could build condos and a shopping mall. The town justified it by saying they would get more tax revenue from the new development that they currently do.

This means that if some town wants more tax money, all they have to do is take your property and then find a developer to knock down your house and build a bigger house to get the town more tax money. I find this completely outrageous and very distasteful. I agree it is outrageous but at the same time many properties become engulfed with a development of some sort around them. In those cases a taking is good and recommended

The issue is the tax and by taking the homes of few they can maintain a very affordable tax rate for the many. I don't agree with it and if the proper people get involved the home owners can fight this and get a proper price for their homes. The problem is many times the target area is one of lower income/ education levels and the home owners are not aware of their rights until it has become to late.

Originally posted by TrueBeliever
[B..The closely watched case involving New London, Conn.,...
..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.


........But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."

New London once was a center for the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108. [/B] the Town of New London, in this case, is trying to resurrect the area. when an industry the carries a town leaves or just becomes non-existent like whaling has, something has to be done. If the town can be revitalized with the development or re designation of the zoning of an area while maintaining the rest of the towns original design then let the work begin.

I have seen both sides of this issue, don't like it but in some, not all, cases I can see the point behind it. I have also not been to New London in over 15 years and can't comment on the conditions of the area being redeveloped.

I am pro-development for the most part, means more work for me either fighting it or designing it - so I talk with a lot of bias