Scotus heard Kelo vs. New London yesterday:
If New London can seize people’s homes so private developers can build a hotel and convention center, what will cities do next? several Supreme Court justices asked during arguments Tuesday.
Can a city decide to get rid of the Motel 6 and put up a Ritz-Carlton, asked Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, because the luxury hotel would produce more taxes?
“That would be OK?” she asked.
“Are we saying you can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia.
Susette Kelo, sitting in the back of the cavernous court chamber, was encouraged by such questions. Kelo is the lead homeowner in a landmark case that pits a group of New London homeowners against a city that sees their property as crucial to its development plans.
Arguing on behalf of New London, attorney Wesley Horton told O’Connor, “Yes, your honor, it would be” appropriate to replace a lower-cost motel with a plush hotel.
A city, in this example, would be exercising its time-honored right of eminent domain, Horton said. The homeowners countered that what was really at stake for New London was whether developers and the city would make more money.
This is the most important case the Supreme Court has heard in ages, and it gets to the very foundation of our republic. Private property rights and protection from a capricious and overbearing government is why we started this little experiment. That is what our Constitution and Bill of Rights are all about. Check out our list of grievances with good ole King George III. In the recent past, governments, under the guise of environmental protection or iminent domain or whatever excuse they can muster have been attacking us on this front. The SCOTUS needs to take a stand.
An interesting debate can be found here.
physics geek
Scotus blog thinks that the government is going to win. I hope to God not.
the friendly grizzly
If they do and cities start pulling these stunts more, I respectfully suggest that The People hold a few necktie parties and invite the city fathers to attend.
Kimmitt
I respectfully suggest that The People hold a few elections and invite the city fathers to enjoy private life. That’s a little more American, no?
Anyway, I’m honestly not sure where Shitty-Ass Policy ends and Unconstitutional Overreach begins.
tweell
If the local government can take your property and give it to someone better connected or who promises them more money, why bother to ‘own’? A house in a good spot would be a bad investment. This has major ramifications for the future.
Geoff Matthews
John, Amen. I fervently hope that New London loses. Building roads is one thing, building hotels is another. If the hotel wants the land so bad, let them buy it the old fashioned way.
Kimmitt
If the local government can take your property and give it to someone better connected or who promises them more money, why bother to ‘own’?
Well, they do have to pay you market rates for it, for starters. In addition, you’re more or less implicitly conceding an awful lot of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence that the Right is usually unfond of. I’m not unhappy about that, but it does bear mention.
That said, I am still divided on the issue. I can see both sides.
tweell
One problem is that the ‘fair market value’ is what the government says it is. The difference is that they are looking at land parcels, not homes that have been lovingly maintained and upgraded. The ‘fair market value’ on my house would not allow me to purchase an equivalent home in the same town where I live now.
The obvious problem is the violation of the fifth amendment. “;nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” How is a private business public use? I don’t see an “unless the business will give the government more money” clause.
wild bird
Hey could we evict the UN and turn the area into a nice amusment park? how about a universal theme park FREEDOMLAND we sure dont need the UN eyesore building i mean it looks no out of place with some old classic sky scrapers like THE CHRYSLER BUILDING and THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING or how about a nice park?
Kimmitt
One problem is that the ‘fair market value’ is what the government says it is.
Not . . . really. There are definite judicial remedies for failure to compensate properly.
I don’t see an “unless the business will give the government more money” clause.
The justification is that it would be conducive to overall development and jobs, which is a public use. Which is way more persuasive in some cases (condemning a tiny house which is holding up a massive and useful skyscraper project) than in others.
TJ Jackson
Of course the ususal suspects seem to believe that government has the right to seize private property and gve it to someone else. If reason doesn’t prevail I cannot think of a better reason to strictly limit the Supreme Court’s ability to rule on any issue except for dog lisencing fees.
Matt
Hey could we evict the UN and turn the area into a nice amusment park?
Good idea. The UN is pretty bad idea to begin with, but now its showing how anti-American it really is. I’m not saying that it disagreed about the Iraq war, I’m talking about how 3 of the 5 permanent members on the Security Council (head executive body)- France, China, and Russia – have historically, and especially recently, never particularly enjoyed our politics.
Not to mention the fact that as long ago as 1994, the UN began surveying Marines in 29 Palms, CA about 1) how they would feel about swearing allegiance to the UN rather than the US, and 2) if the Marines would fire on American civilians who would not reliquish their personal firearms under a direct UN ruling, even though gun control is against the Constitution, which the Marines had sworn to uphold. Hey, sounds like the UN’s got a plan for us. Take our troops, take our guns, and then we’re all safe, right? Yeah, tell that to 1930s German Jews, and to Soviet peasants.
I have no idea how we went from Kero v. New London to the UN, but whatever. It’s all based on the same bedrock principle of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” right?
Matt
Hey could we evict the UN and turn the area into a nice amusment park?
Good idea. The UN is pretty bad idea to begin with, but now its showing how anti-American it really is. I’m not saying that it disagreed about the Iraq war, I’m talking about how 3 of the 5 permanent members on the Security Council (head executive body)- France, China, and Russia – have historically, and especially recently, never particularly enjoyed our politics.
Not to mention the fact that as long ago as 1994, the UN began surveying Marines in 29 Palms, CA about 1) how they would feel about swearing allegiance to the UN rather than the US, and 2) if the Marines would fire on American civilians who would not reliquish their personal firearms under a direct UN ruling, even though gun control is against the Constitution, which the Marines had sworn to uphold. Hey, sounds like the UN’s got a plan for us. Take our troops, take our guns, and then we’re all safe, right? Yeah, tell that to 1930s German Jews, and to Soviet peasants.
I have no idea how we went from Kero v. New London to the UN, but whatever. It’s all based on the same bedrock principle of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” right?
Dean
Developers don’t pay fair market value. They deem the area an area in need of redevelopment for many years which causes the neighborhood to decline and values to decline or remaine stagnant. The valuations are always based on Existing Use ie. single family residential when the developers and local government know that the land is more suited for a more intense use with a much higher value ie. condos, towmhomes, commercial or mixed use. The day after they seize the property they rezone for the benefit of the developer not the previous owmer. (criminal act) A more fair solution would be to re-zone first inflate the value for the existing owner to reap, tripple taxes based on the new land use to force them to sell and therefore achieve the same result which may be positive ie. clean up a blighted area.
Leonard
This is when we need to use our 2nd amendment right. Protect our homs from a government that has gone nuts and greedy private enterprise that tramples over our private property rights. I say to hell with them. Protect your home in any means possible. Even if that means is violent.