June 23, 2005

Justices Rule Cities Can Take Property for Private Development

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in one of its most closely watched property rights cases in years, that fostering economic development is an appropriate use of the government's power of eminent domain.

The 5-to-4 decision cleared the way for the city of New London, Conn., to proceed with a large-scale plan to replace a faded residential neighborhood with office space for research and development., a conference hotel, new residences and a pedestrian "riverwalk" along the Thames River.

Statistics: Posted by Humbert Humbert — 24 Jun 2005 02:59

Statistics: Posted by ALK — 24 Jun 2005 02:20

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment.

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.

Statistics: Posted by VladimirF — 24 Jun 2005 01:31

Statistics: Posted by Дед Мороз — 23 Jun 2005 22:39

Statistics: Posted by Hamster — 23 Jun 2005 22:38

Statistics: Posted by Дед Мороз — 23 Jun 2005 22:28

Capricorn wrote:Не знаю плохо ето или хорошо.. Видимо одна из целеи - возможност' снести развалину за которые держится владелец в надежде на "продать подороже"..
см NYC, Newark, Jersey City и окрестности..

City officials admitted the area was far from blighted, but simply wanted to pursue plans for economic growth.

Statistics: Posted by Yura_SD — 23 Jun 2005 21:51

Statistics: Posted by Yura_SD — 23 Jun 2005 21:47

Statistics: Posted by Capricorn — 23 Jun 2005 21:43

Hamster wrote:Решила не строй-компания, а правительство города

Statistics: Posted by Yura_SD — 23 Jun 2005 21:41

Statistics: Posted by kron — 23 Jun 2005 21:40

Statistics: Posted by Дед Мороз — 23 Jun 2005 21:30

Yura_SD wrote:Меня поражают люди которые не понимают проблемы пока их самих не постигнет ета-же участь. Не правильно ето забирать дома для постройки новых более дорогих домов, гостинец и тд. Ети дома ноходились пусть и не в лучшем, но далеко и не в худшем раёне города. Выбранны для снесения были потому что строй-компания решила что лучше поставит там отель с видом и заработать денег ( и совсем не имеет значения что там стоят частные дома). Я на вас лично посмотрел бы, окажись вы в етой ситуации. Что-то мне посказывает что у вас было-бы другое мнение.

Что мне не нравится в Американской политической системе - это консерватизм. Сторонники всегда говорят: "Если данная система работает (хоть и со скрежетом), то лучше ничего не менять." Однако, то что было продуктивным 200 лет назад может быть не совсем совершенным сейчас. Но мой вопрос был адрессован приветовчам

Don't fix it if it ain't broken.

Но те две фракции одной и той же партии, которые у власти в Америке на протяжении длительного периода, добровольно не допустят никаких изменений существующего порядка без форс-мажорных обстоятельств

...
То, что демократы и республиканцы это одна и та же партия - это вы загнули
...

Statistics: Posted by jabba — 23 Jun 2005 21:19

Statistics: Posted by Hamster — 23 Jun 2005 20:41

Statistics: Posted by Hamster — 23 Jun 2005 20:38

Statistics: Posted by Hamster — 23 Jun 2005 20:37

что вас удивляет?
power->many->power,
Т-Д-Т

Statistics: Posted by Yura_SD — 23 Jun 2005 20:31

Statistics: Posted by Yura_SD — 23 Jun 2005 20:24

Statistics: Posted by jabba — 23 Jun 2005 20:19

WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.

Skip to next paragraph
Text: Opinion | Case Background (findlaw.com) In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.

The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales.

Justice Stevens noted that city officials had been addressing New London's sagging economic fortunes for years, and he said their decisions on how best to cope with them were entitled to wide deference.

Of course, he wrote, the city would be barred from taking one's property and transferring it to another private owner strictly for the latter's benefit. But in this instance, he said, the city is promoting a variety of commercial, residential and recreational land uses "with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts" and bring economic benefits to the general community.

In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she 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."

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

Justice Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice O'Connor's fellow dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Stevens noted that the homes in question could not be considered a slum area, and that indeed some of the people have lived in their homes for decades. Rather, he said, the properties "were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area."

"In affirming the city's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation," Justice Stevens wrote, adding that local governments have the authority to refine their condemnation policies, and curb them if they wish.

The case is Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108. Susette Kelo is one of the property owners who petitioned the courts to block the condemnation of their homes in the Fort Trumbull area of New London.

"She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view," Justice Stevens noted. Another petitioner, Wilhelmina Dery, "was born in her Fort Trumbull house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life," the justice wrote. "Her husband, Charles (also a petitioner), has lived in the house since they married some 60 years ago."

City officials admitted the area was far from blighted, but simply wanted to pursue plans for economic growth.

Statistics: Posted by Yura_SD — 23 Jun 2005 20:00