read the quote at the end

Clint · 02-22-2005, 07:55 AM

Supreme Court to Hear Eminent Domain Case
New London, Conn., Residents Fighting Land Seizure
By PETE YOST, AP

WASHINGTON (Feb. 22) - Residents trying to hang onto their homes in a working class neighborhood of New London, Conn., are waging a battle in the Supreme Court over their city government's attempt to seize property for private economic development.

AP
Susette Kelo sits in her New London, Conn., home as she discusses her effort to protect her home from eminent domain seizure.

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to bulldoze their residences to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to move, arguing it was an unconstitutional taking of their property.

The case's outcome will have significant implications for so-called eminent domain actions.

There have been over 10,000 instances in recent years of private property being threatened with condemnation or actually condemned by government for private use, according to the Institute for Justice. The group represents the New London residents who filed the case.

Talk About It

· Chat | Post Messages

The issue revolves around whether a government is serving a public purpose when it uses its power of eminent domain to take land. The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. The New London case is not about the amount of compensation being offered, but whether the government can take the property at all.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has deferred to the decision-making of elected state and local officials.

The court said in 1954 that it is legal for urban renewal to encompass non-blighted commercial buildings in a blighted neighborhood. In 1984, the court upheld Hawaii's land reform law that broke the grip of large landowners, with property being taken and then resold to others.

More recently, many cities and towns have been accused of abusing their authority, razing nice homes to make way for parking lots for casinos and other tax-producing businesses.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of 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 leaders say the private development will generate tax revenue and improve the local economy.

"The undisputed facts regarding the steady deterioration of New London's economy from the 1970s onwards demonstrate the dire need for such a development project,'' the city told the court.

The New London neighborhood that would be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families.

Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for over 50 years.

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

Anthony Williams, who is president of the National League of Cities, says the power of eminent domain is one of the most important tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods.

"Where would Baltimore be without the Inner Harbor, Kansas City without the Kansas Speedway, Canton, Miss., without its new Nissan plant?'' Williams said.

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

02/22/05 07:44 EST

HudsonValleyTitan · 02-22-2005, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clint

Supreme Court to Hear Eminent Domain Case
New London, Conn., Residents Fighting Land Seizure
By PETE YOST, AP

WASHINGTON (Feb. 22) - Residents trying to hang onto their homes in a working class neighborhood of New London, Conn., are waging a battle in the Supreme Court over their city government's attempt to seize property for private economic development.

AP
Susette Kelo sits in her New London, Conn., home as she discusses her effort to protect her home from eminent domain seizure.

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to bulldoze their residences to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to move, arguing it was an unconstitutional taking of their property.

The case's outcome will have significant implications for so-called eminent domain actions.

There have been over 10,000 instances in recent years of private property being threatened with condemnation or actually condemned by government for private use, according to the Institute for Justice. The group represents the New London residents who filed the case.

Talk About It

· Chat | Post Messages

The issue revolves around whether a government is serving a public purpose when it uses its power of eminent domain to take land. The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. The New London case is not about the amount of compensation being offered, but whether the government can take the property at all.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has deferred to the decision-making of elected state and local officials.

The court said in 1954 that it is legal for urban renewal to encompass non-blighted commercial buildings in a blighted neighborhood. In 1984, the court upheld Hawaii's land reform law that broke the grip of large landowners, with property being taken and then resold to others.

More recently, many cities and towns have been accused of abusing their authority, razing nice homes to make way for parking lots for casinos and other tax-producing businesses.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of 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 leaders say the private development will generate tax revenue and improve the local economy.

"The undisputed facts regarding the steady deterioration of New London's economy from the 1970s onwards demonstrate the dire need for such a development project,'' the city told the court.

The New London neighborhood that would be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families.

Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for over 50 years.

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

Anthony Williams, who is president of the National League of Cities, says the power of eminent domain is one of the most important tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods.

"Where would Baltimore be without the Inner Harbor, Kansas City without the Kansas Speedway, Canton, Miss., without its new Nissan plant?'' Williams said.

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

02/22/05 07:44 EST

Ok maybe I'm an idiot but...it sounds to me like Nissan somehow took over personal property to build its' plant?

GO_VOLS! · 02-22-2005, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HudsonValleyTitan

Ok maybe I'm an idiot but...it sounds to me like Nissan somehow took over personal property to build its' plant?

I'm not sure about Nissan's plant, but I know that the Honda plant was built on the proper that the state of AL bought from private owners.

The Hyundai plant that they're starting in AL as well was supposed to have been in KY. If I remember correctly, 4 out of 5 families sold their farms to the state, but 1 guy held out because he didn't want to move. The state offered him $1m for his land, but he demanded $5m! The Hyundai team decided they didn't want to fool around with this guy so the went to Montgomery, AL. Last I heard, they stupid guy had to sell his property for far less than $1m because he was receiving death threats and someone killed his dogs! The state bought the land and now they're turning it into a business park. What a greedy MOFO!

Clint · 02-22-2005, 11:09 AM

I was just reading a link on a news page and was very surprised when I got to the end, that's all. No, it's not fair to tell someone that their home isn't as important as a business or other developement. The minimum should be a home nice enough to make you willing to go, not just give you a few bucks and sends you on your way.

Clint

*DCtitan* · 02-22-2005, 01:22 PM

I personally now that i wouldnt give my farm away to any car company even NISSAN I dont care IMO Hyundai makes a such a ****ty car that they shouldnt even be on the market I think that I would be helping the world more feeding hay to my cows to make meat for the U.S. Citizens then letting hyundai take my land and make some peaice of **** on it i dont even think tha hyundai good make something anything with good qulity that even cows would be able to apreciate i would rather have all my animals die and be shot and killed before i would give my land up for a hyundai plant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MO Titan · 02-22-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCtitan

I personally now that i wouldnt give my farm away to any car company even NISSAN I dont care IMO Hyundai makes a such a ****ty car that they shouldnt even be on the market I think that I would be helping the world more feeding hay to my cows to make meat for the U.S. Citizens then letting hyundai take my land and make some peaice of **** on it i dont even think tha hyundai good make something anything with good qulity that even cows would be able to apreciate i would rather have all my animals die and be shot and killed before i would give my land up for a hyundai plant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude remember your pills!!!!!

*DCtitan* · 02-22-2005, 02:59 PM

no no pills just get pissed at people who want to take land from farmers and make factories, and subdivisions, and other crap like that makes me VERY ANGRY

BLWedge09 · 02-22-2005, 03:27 PM

I'm originally from Meridian, MS about 150 miles down the road from the Nissan plant and I still go back there every other weekend. The battle among Nissan, home/landowners, and the local officials is still not really over. If memory serves me, only a few families were affected and one of them actaully managed to keep their property. They now live right behind the plant, very close actually. There may still be some fighting going on over this one because of the upcoming expansion of the plant. That expansion was announced before the plant was even finished being bulit.

My personal opinion is that 95% of the time, eminent domain cases are wrong. You have to put yourself int he situation of the land/homeowner. Think about if this happened to you. Even if you are compensated monetarily for more than the "book" value of the property, many people cannot be adequately compensated for the pain involved in being forced out/off from a house/land that they legally owned.

Personally, I'd be the guy standing on my front porch with a shotgun when they came to level the place. They'd literally have to take me out with it. Nobody is going to force me to sell something I worked hard to buy.

tillery444 · 02-22-2005, 03:45 PM

There is a poor guy here in downtown San Diego that recently spent 1.3 mil to remodel an old building to create a successful cigar business for which the city granted him the permits. Now I guess they changed their minds because, they want his property so they can turn it over to a wealthy hotel chain. The moral of the story is, you will get pissed on for a buck! Two years ago I bought a home here in San Diego and paid 50K for a lot premium because it "had" a view of Coronado bay and the downtown skyline. The next year they built an elementary school with a very large gym that almost completely blocked my view! Can you believe they didn’t give my 50K back! lol

jdmartin · 02-22-2005, 06:38 PM

As a former city manager I have been on the side of the government looking to get the property. It's a tough situation. On the one hand it is really hard to take someone's property who really doesn't want to leave, but on the other hand if the government never took property at all half of everything around including roads would never be built, because there's always going to be someone that doesn't want to go.

The flip side of all this is also that many times the holdout person has nothing to do with sentimentality, etc - they're simply trying to milk the government for every last dime they can get out of them. Most people know these days it's cheaper for the government to simply pay more money than have to go pay lawyers to fight it out in a court over how much money gets paid.

As for the Hyundai plant in Kentucky, it must have been strictly private dealings without eminent domain involved because the whole point of eminent domain is that the government can take property of those who don't want to give it up.

As for the case that opens this up, and with the limited knowledge I have about the situation, I tend to side with the homeowners because there doesn't seem to be any serious guaranteed public benefit. For example if eminent domain was used to help secure property for a car manufacturing facility, it's pretty obvious that a boatload of jobs are going to be coming to the community. However, hotels can easily fail without guests, office space can remain unrented, etc. Service and manufacturing are two totally different animals in that respect.

FLfinfan · 02-22-2005, 07:12 PM

I can see it for an important road, dam, hospital etc... But not for another hotel, condo, or industrial park. All this crap sounds like an episode of "The Big Valley" or "Bonanza". Why should anyone have to give up what they own so some suit can make more money.
Some folks have a family stake, family blood and tradition in their land and the fact that some sleezy politician can take it from them wants to make me load the scatter gun too. Heck they already have taken almost all the beachside property here, to the point that you can't even see the beach in most places. I will be PO'ed when I can't see the ocean without paying some greasy weasil politician.
Some places are even talking about selling public lands, like park land and other protected land to private companies. When will it stop, when we all live in a tent in a Walmart parking lot.

TITAN MAN · 02-23-2005, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCtitan

I personally now that i wouldnt give my farm away to any car company even NISSAN I dont care IMO Hyundai makes a such a ****ty car that they shouldnt even be on the market I think that I would be helping the world more feeding hay to my cows to make meat for the U.S. Citizens then letting hyundai take my land and make some peaice of **** on it i dont even think tha hyundai good make something anything with good qulity that even cows would be able to apreciate i would rather have all my animals die and be shot and killed before i would give my land up for a hyundai plant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I will agree with you on the government siezure of land, But I have to defend Hyundai... I had an 01 Hyundai Sonata and was a very good car! It was every bit as reliable as a Toyota or Honda or Nissan. Saying that they are all **** is not correct.IMO.. Granted, They were very poor Quality when they came to the U.S. market in the mid-80's, But they are alot better now. I would buy another one if i was in the market for another car.
Sorry for the rant... Just sharing my views too.
Adam

rdfeatherstone · 02-23-2005, 04:51 AM

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Okay the root issue here all boils down to money.

The property owners only pay so much Tax$$$$$$$$$ on their property.

The City/State wants to claim "emment domain" which is supposed to mean the ability to seize ( for fair compensation) property that will be use for the greater public good.

The problem here is that the public will not recieve greater public good. The city/state plans to sell the seized property to a PRIVATE developer for the grand sum of $1. They hope to get a better tax base and thus make more Tax$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

The question to the Supreme Court will be is this a proper emmenent domain seizure or just a land grab to benefit a wealthy property developer??

In my opinion, the property owner should receive as part of their fair compensation a 1% return on all profits realized by the property developer. That would certainly be a benefit for the people forced out of their homes. After all, it is all about money.