The blogosphere is buzzing about Kelo v. New London. Last week the Supreme Court turned the “public use” clause of the Fifth Amendment on its head. Local governments now have the power to snatch private property for “economic development” whether such development benefits the public or not.
Nutshell: In 1996 the feds closed the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in New London, Connecticut, and a lot of people lost their jobs. The city’s unemployment rate was double that of the rest of the state. A private organization called New London Development Corporation came up with a “revitalization” plan, and a pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, said it would build a $300 research facility to create jobs. Situated on the new development would be a hotel, restaurants, stores, marinas, a riverwalk, 800 new “residences” (condominiums?), a museum and business offices.
In order to do all of this, the city needed to kick a couple of homeowners off their property. One plaintiff, Susan Kelo, had made improvements to her house, which has a great view of the water, and the other plaintiff, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her house and has lived there for 87 years. They sued the city on the grounds that the taking would violate the “public use” restriction of the Fifth Amendment. They argued that the economic development plan is not a “public use” for the purposes of the Takings Clause.
The rationale behind this restriction on government is obvious. In fact, the whole Constitution is one big restriction on government, but you wouldn’t know it these days. Private property is a basic right in the United States, and the government is restricted from interfering with this right.
But the founders knew that under certain circumstances, the government would need to interfere with this right. They defined as narrowly as possible an exception called eminent domain. The government could take private property for public use, but they must justly compensate the owner. Property could not be taken from one private citizen and given to another private citizen.
For example, if the government takes someone’s property to build a public road, railroad tracks, or power company, the “public use” intentions are clear. Taking private property that has been condemned or should be condemned in order to rebuild a blighted area for public safety or asthetics is another clear public use.
The court went through an analysis of the case law and history of public use. The issue:
The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City’s development plan serves a “public purpose.†Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.
In this case, they defined public use broadly and found that the government can take private property for economic development, which may or may not directly benefit the public. The court contended:
There is, moreover, no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes that we have recognized….Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.
And that’s the nail. Under the court’s reasoning, private property can be taken away from private citizens under an economic development plan. That is, the purpose need not be public use only; as long as there’s some secondary or indirect benefit to the public, the taking is for “public use” and, therefore, constitutional. End Nutshell
Bad, bad precedent.
That’s a basic overview of what happened, but if you have the time and inclination, I encourage you to read at least the majority opinion and the two dissents (Justice O’Connor and Justice Thomas). How the court arrived at its decision is very nuanced, and there’s much more to it than my little synopsis.
This decision will no doubt please the social engineers in the DC area. They’re pushing a socialist policy called “Smart Growth.” In order to alleviate traffic congestion, they say, the government must encourage private individuals and entities to build businesses and housing closer to Metro stations so people can “work where they live” and stay off the highways.
People want to get out of the stinking city and away from the crime and grime, but liberals want to bring them back. Thanks to stringent land use restrictions, housing prices are astronomical. And thanks to this case, local governments can now steal private property under an “economic development” ruse to create faux urban utopias that bored liberals have been lusting after for years.
The decision stinks, of course, but the Supreme Court has been doing this sort of thing for years (with more to come). They wield power like a machete, cutting up the original meaning of the Constitution and throwing it back in our faces. What they did in Roe v. Wade was unconscionable and perverted. They discovered some deeply hidden “right to privacy” in the Constitution, and that right extended to killing babies in the womb.
Nothing they ever do will be worse than that.
Related post: Government Regulations and Human Nature.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 61 comments }
Regarding the liberal, America-hating justices lead by Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: HOW did we let Clinton place a former National Organization for Women local chapter president onto the Supreme court in the first place? But I digress……I heard this on the radio this morning during a conversation about these wicked black-robed oligarchs.
Some people are like slinkys. Totally useless, but when pushed down a flight of stairs, they bring a smile to your face.
Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a book titled “The Majesty of the Law.” This irritated me because with the activist courts we have the title should have been “The Finality of What At Least Five of Us Say The Law Should Be.” Now it’s not even “The Majesty of the Constitution.” With this ruling, every piece of tax-exempt property owned by a charitable group is no longer safe from would be developers.
This is what I think Mr. Bush needs to hear….
DARN IT IT MR. PRESIDENT! WHERE ARE YOU? SHOW SOME STINKING LEADERSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What are you doing man? The Senate is in disarray.
The moderates lead by that fence-walking goon John
McCain are screwing with the people’s mandate for a CONSERVATIVE COURSE for this nation. The Democrats are screaming insults like little school children and the GOP Senate leadership is getting punked like a 120lb cute boy “fish” in Folsom State Prison!
WHERE ARE YOU MR. PRESIDENT?
PRESIDENT BUSH HAS GOT TO GO ON OFFENSE! This assault on our nation by liberals and Democrats has to be stopped and an ACTIVE COUNTER-OFFENSIVE launched.
Even the African-American voter long written off as dependent on handouts, the government, silly so-called black pseudo-leaders and Democrat mandates on how to behave are aware of this latest, sick, left-wing, Marxist ruling by the “Thieves in Black.”
Enough is enough. There is opportunity here. The
Black voter, long written off as hopelessly
brainwashed and automatic in our support for the left is becoming more educated, affluent and members of the ownership class. Especially PROPERTY OWNERSHIP and we are EXTREMELY ANGRY at what took place at the US Supreme Court last week.
President Bush has a prime opportunity to speak on
this subject and DEMAND the States amend their
consitutions to protect the people from the Marxist left using the courts to turn this nation into a western Soviet Union.
As Senator McCarthy warned us, the enemy within (as Michael Savage would say) HAS REVEALED HIMSELF. It is the Democrat Party and their court appointed, America-hating deep plants who are executing their evil plan (a la “Executive Order 66 in “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith”).
The Mexicans are invading this nation and stealing
land, money and resources. The Chinese are buying up the joint. The islamo-fascists are attacking and killing us with their cult religion’s “principles” and trying to
infect our Judeo-Christian based culture. The
homosexuals are trying to destroy the family and
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE COWARDS IN THE US
SENATE ARE SITTING BACK AND LETTING IT HAPPEN!!!
I can’t do it all Mr. President. I need YOUR help.
I won’t be holding my breath, but I have to try.
Looks like the only viable CONSERVATIVE for President is Rep. Tom Tancredo at this point.
“Thanks to stringent land use restrictions, housing prices are astronomical”
Are you sure?
Walmart is just jumping up and down for glee over this ruling. It would be interesting to check the financial statements of the liberals on the court since this case was brought. It would also be cool to check phone and meeting records, public or clandestine if any exist.
Some money HAD to change hands for this idiotic Marxist verdict to come about. Pretty soon, these monkesy on the Supreme Court will be ordering our military to beat their weapons into plaw shares (as the Soviet National Anthem plays softly in the background and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg elicits a barely audible devilish snicker)
For more information on this Eminent Domain subject, if you can, tune into the Neal Boortz radio show on weekdays. He has this subject nailed down.
He will educate you.
“Some money HAD to change hands for this idiotic Marxist verdict to come about.”
Marxists don’t care about compensation.
La Shawn, small quibble. I’m even against the notion that the government can seize & rebuild a “blighted” area for public safety or asthetics. This excuse is also an extension of Eminent Domain. Here’s why.
If the local government believes that an area should be rejuvenated, then they can well offer developers the tax credits and other incentives to pay whatever price to induce the landowner to give it up. Keep in mind that truly blighted areas tend to be owned by absent owners and landlords.
Landlords will sell when offered enough money to make it worthwhile to start over somewhere else, therefore just compensation is not the value of existing property, but what it would take to buy new property and maintain the revenue stream. Likewise for homeowners, they need to be able to buy a new home equal in size or whatever it is that he homeowner feels is just. Afterall, in truly blighted reas, the homeowner would have left it if they could afford to.
Ultimately, I don’t care if a private property is rat/weed infested. So be it if the owner choses to let his property rot. If push omes to shove, then the government can come in and clean it up, but they can’t take it.
Eminent Domain has been a hot issue off and on over the years of the 20th century. To wit some of the old cartoons such as early Looney Tunes, Little Lulu, Popeye and even 3 Stooges, and other comedies have dealt with the topic where the protagonist wins and the developers have to build around the one landowner that refuses to give up.
Hopefully this is an aberation that will be fixed once we restore SCOTUS to a semblance of sanity. The right of the private individual is sacrosanct and the power of the government is derived from the people, not the other way around.
Actus, #4: “Are you sure?”
Are you sure it’s not? All one has to do is look at California, that bastion of land use restrictions.
Now we understand that even the Highest Courts have a central flaw. They’re run by lawyers!
Does anyone still believe that judges really look for the “right” answers to legal conflict? It’s all about deals and this must have been a real honker! Now any home can be stolen from it’s owners when some local flunky pol accepts a lap dance from a developer!
And don’t forget this is the same court that said that the UNWRITTEN need for “diversity” outweighs the WRITTEN requirement for equal protections!
Until public ethics matter again we will all be subject to the whims of these non-elected, self-proclaimed last authorities.
“Are you sure it’s not? All one has to do is look at California, that bastion of land use restrictions.”
And all one has to do is look at DC, where we really don’t have that land use restriction problem. We do have low interest rates and really cheap loans. Could be just demand driven.
I wish I had a nickel for every one of my liberal friends who said “I can’t believe I’m siding with Scalia and Thomas on something.”
not that I’m conspiratorial or anything… BUT
http://marklaroi.blogspot.com/2005/06/slavery-alive-and-well-in-us.html
“Marxists don’t care about compensation?” Hmmmmm. Public school right?
This is also the same AMERICA court who cited EUROPEAN and INTERNATIONAL LAW in the Texas Sodomy Case thus ruling in favor of sexual perversion.
I really hope that Mr. Bush is holding back the big guns on the whole judgeship/filibuster deal, waiting to sock it to the libs on the first Supreme Court nominee. In my daydream, I see him nominating a rock-solid constitutionalist to replace the Chief Justice, followed by another just like that to replace O’Conner when she retires, and I see him working with the Senate majority to crush the leftist obstruction.
Please, please, let it not be just a daydream.
And please, Mr. President, take note of the historical lessons of diabolical choices, such as Eisenhower’s miscalculation when nominating Earl Warren, and George H. W. Bush’s screw-up in nominating David Souter.
The US Constitution clearly says “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW………..”
And the idea of separation of church and state as presently applied, a la the ACLU is a myth.
The US Constitution guarantees Freedom OF Religion, NEVER has guaranteed freedom FROM religion.
Even if Bush wins (highly unlikely given his lack of a spine) in appointing a conservative to the court, the liberals appear to be healthy enough to survive a few more years to terrorize the nation.
There WILL be a price to pay from Above. GOD DON’T LIKE UGLY and you are only going to deny Him and insult His name for so long.
Looking on the bright side, I think a TRUE CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION (backlash) is going to take place. Hopefully, the new CONSERVATIVE elected officials who will replace the spineless RINOS will have the intestinal fortitude to start removing some of the jurisdiction of the federal courts and thusly liberal power.
We ARE going to win this thing people IF you bote the bums out and DEMAND a RIGHT turn back to our founding principles.
On a side not. Congratulations to Hillsborough County Commissioner Ronda Storms (R) for offering a mandate to no longer fund, support or acknowledge homosexual activites, parades and displays at any level. It passed 6-1!!!!
Of course, the sodomites are marching and raising sand.
WAY TO GO TAMPA!!!!
Red Beard, alas, there will be a 5-4 lean in favor of the American Soviets.
I’ll have to read the details because I’m not sure how they could make a decision like this. I for one would not like to have my land stolen from me. As for restrictive land policies. California needs it I know there is an issue in the San Francisco area that they need to address, but people are building homes where they have no business and without some restrictions, there isn’t a open space of land that developers would not want to turn into the next great community living.
Land restriction is one thing. STEALING land is a whole other and STEALING land has been one of the most prominent catalysts for WAR in human history.
RENQUIST NOR O’CONNOR WILL STEP DOWN!!!!!!!!!
Nothing they ever do will be worse than that.
Sometimes it’s what they won’t do too. I can think of one case they refused to hear – which would have made a big difference for a lot of people affected by life or death decisions. Not worse – I’d put it at equal.
BTW – haven’t commented for a while – I had browser trouble with your blog for a while there but now it’s ok. Don’t know why that was.
““Marxists don’t care about compensation?†Hmmmmm. Public school right? ”
You think marxists care about compensating the owners of expropriated property?
Don’t you hate it when some-one just comments on one line from a good post? Forgot my manners -it’s a good post.
Comments aren’t bad either – except actus’ silly attempt at devil’s advocate. That’s boring.
Oops. Huge apology to actus – not his comment. Although he is devil’s advocate as usual.
Ok – the long rant was boring. I prefer the post – it treats me like I’m intelligent.
Raymond – Go sit down and breathe somewhere.
Seems that cities are going to use this ruling to grab valuable land in the inner cities to redevelop for suburbanites who are tired of the commute into work. So will housing projects end up in the suburbs???
Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll end up in the trash.
Reply #27:
They are already doing that. The city of Chicago actually redefined a middle working class neighborhood as blighted because a developer want to build lofts in the area but it was zoned for commercial use. After the City Council tagged it as a blighted area they forced the retail shops to sell their land but one owner of a bike shop refused and it went to court. He can now hang it up because the Supreme Court just killed any chance he had. It is a shame. I know Native Americans are having a ball with this one.
Tiffany, that’s one way of looking at it. Push the po’ folks out – where mass transit is a joke and the cost of getting to work will be high due to inefficient clunkers, so the rich can save precious time & money driving their SUVs to work.
So much for protecting the weak & defenseless…
It’s amazing how fast this can turn into class warfare. Tiffany and Andy have already illustrated how the noble inner-city dwellers will be uprooted and replaced with “the rich”- meaning anyone who lives in the suburbs. I guess those rich bast#*ds in the suburbs deserve it when their homes get taken.
NOBODY I’ve talked to likes this ruling. And I have talk to at least 30 people on the street. Random people, like at a drive through at Wendy’s. It is a great opportunity to spread understanding about the structural problems with the “progressive” movement. It is their policies that have brought this about.
I was reading the DU thread on the topic, and they were nearly all outraged. They were all amazed that the “conservative” judges ruled the way they wanted. They described the ruling as fascism. They also agreed with the Free Republic posters that the ruling was horrible – but they thought they were dumb for calling the ruling “socialism”, while they were calling it “fascism”.
This is a significant opportunity. Fascism and Socialism are structurally identical. They are the same thing, but sold to the public under different guises. This is an opportunity to help those on the left to understand that FASCISM AND SOCIALISM ARE THE SAME THING.
Reply to #31:
I think you take a simplistic approach to this. What Tiffany is saying, and I agree, is that the government has been given limitless powers to acquire private property. This has nothing to do with class but whether it is inner-city or suburban, the government now has the right to take that land if it feels that a new development will bring economic gain to that community. But it is not hard to see that inner-city neighborhoods are at a greater risk. The warfare is with government power, not clas.
” But it is not hard to see that inner-city neighborhoods are at a greater risk.”
They already were. If anything, Kelo equalized poor and wealthy.
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is all now that stands between the private citizenry and overzealous land grabbers and socialist-fascist liberal politicians.
The liberals in order to fully execute this assault on the people’s right to own property must now severely weaken the Right to Bear Arms.
If you ever thought the 2nd Amendment applied only to the military or at the max, to protect us from each other, I bet you feel differently now.
The Second Amendment was designed to protect the people from a corrupt government. I expect gun shows to become VERY VERY popular after this ruling.
Pajamazon – save the drama…
Nobody said anything about class warfare. The fact of the matter is that many suburban empty nesters and young single professionals are choosing to come back to the inner cities and downtown. Condos are going up like crazy in Minneapolis, where I live. Nowhere in my statements did I infer that suburbanites deserve to have their houses taken from them. Read what is written, not what you think you see.
Why are we arguing if we agree that the court was out of line on this?
RedBeard,
Good point. I think what we need to be arguing is what is the best course of action in fixing it and weakening the power of rogue federal courts.
Reply #35:
Ok Bubba, I would sure like to know how owning a gun is going to make a bit of difference here. Do you expect people to baracade themselves in their homes with shotguns? That sounds like a winning move. The government has a nice relocation plan already in place for anyone who takes you up on that.
Reply #34:
You are right. They were in danger but there were some limits. Now the gate is wide open and I’m sure a lot of developers are looking at more than just the most blighted areas in the city.
Jimmy, if you have to ask, then you are one of them and your condescending use of the term “Bubba” is one reason people in the South do own weapons. To protect us from northeast liberal elites who assume that people from the South are somehow less intelligent with respect to matters or state or anything else.
“Bubba?” Hardly. “Bubba” is the name of the plantation owner whose place I left in 1865.
Raymond, can you make an effort to consolidate your comments and submit one or two posts instead of five in a row? Thanks. – Admin
Manning,
Your FEAR of the government is EXACTLY what created conditions where people ended up serving the government and not the other way around as it should be.
“To protect us from northeast liberal elites who assume that people from the South are somehow less intelligent with respect to matters or state or anything else.”
Are you so afraid of us?
Ok, I will give you that the use of the term “Bubba” was condescending. But you still haven’t explain how owning a gun will help. It sounds nice, but I’m sure there isn’t anyone in this country prepared to “defend” themselves against the US military. If the Taliban couldn’t do it, I’m sure Mookie, Rick Dawg and Lil Raymand ‘em from down the street don’t have much of a chance.
I know southerner are pretty good shots but I wouldn’t give Billy Ray, cousin Pearl and cousin George much a chance either.
“Ok, I will give you that the use of the term “Bubba†was condescending. ”
During the 92 campaign, clinton was called “bubba” by some NYC DJ’s. He called them up, on the air, and said something to the effect of ‘Bubba is southern for mensch.’ It was a big hit.
James Manning said:
“people are building homes where they have no business and without some restrictions, there isn’t a open space of land that developers would not want to turn into the next great community living.”
They have “no business”? Excuse me? OK, James, if that were your land, who’s “business” is it? Yours, or the government’s?
If the government wants to keep my land from being built upon, they can buy it from me, and they can out-bid the contractor who wants to make it into homes. Because it is MY business what happens on my land, not the state of California, or any of their municipalities.
Let me make it simple – the only people who should have any say, whatsoever, on what is done on my land, is me. Period. If I sell it to another party, that party gets that right when I sell it.
TV (Harry)
Reply #43:
The restrictions I was refering to had to do with the stability of the land where people are building homes. The number of homes lost in landslides was partly due to the area where the city allowed homes to be built. As for your land, yes, I agree that you should be able to do whatever you want, but there is some limit to that. Even when you remodel, the city is going to limit what size home you can put on your lot.
Don’t take what I meant as to say the government has the right to do whatever it wants… but there are restrictions. But my issue is that goverment can force a homeowner to give up their land for whatever reason they come with. I don’t think that is a good for private property rights.
For once, Madame Justice O’Connor actually got a legal opinion right:
“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.”
The Court has knocked away one of the central tenents of our democracy: the right to property. If anybody thought (as did Mr. Justice Kennedy… the idiot) that such theft would be rare, take a look at Freeport, TX:
“With Thursday’s Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.”
http://constitutiondeathpool.blogspot.com/2005/06/great-scotus-land-grab-has-come-to.html
They didn’t even wait for the ink to dry.
But cheer up, everybody: I’m sure that the Court will insist that we have a Fourteenth Amendment right to wooden floors in the huts of our relocation camps.
T in Mpls
My comment was more to Andy and the SUV statement than to you. And even though your first concerns are about “housing projects”-(non-owners in most cases) I will withdraw your name from comment # 31.
You don’t fight the police. You can’t win and the Politicians don’t give a damn. And working to replace the Politicians is a real joke after they have gotten rich serving the developers.
First, you do all you legally can, through the courts, through the media, etc. Then you make the decision. Is it worth it. If it is you get rid of the Politician. After this happens a couple of time the Politicians decide the money just is’t worth their life.
We are talking about corrupt politicians here.
We also work to replace those idiots on the SC who made this decision.
No you don’t use your guns to fight the police. Most gun people aren’t that stupid. You use them where they will do the most good against the corrupt politicians.
The costs are a bitch but do you stand for what is right or just forgetabout it. Your decision.
If you think that only liberal politicians will make use of this, you just wait and see.
This has corruption written all over it and it’s going to cross party/ideological lines.
I agree, DS. Conservatives in VA will definitely make use of it. They want land use restrictions because they don’t want all those city folks moving anywhere near them.
And I don’t blame them.
DS: Too right. Power attracts the corruptable like flies to stink.
James: Could you pack a little more condescenion into you comments about southerners? Is Raymond even southern?
While Raymond is over the top today, he has a point. The 2nd ammendment just got another boost in importance, now that the 5th has been diminished.
SCSI –
I could try but I won’t. I don’t think Raymond has a point at all. There is no way you can explain to me how owning a gun assist in any way. Again, who’s going to fight City Hall with a gun when they come to snatch their land? Read what happened to the Black Pathers in Chicago or MOVE in Philadelphia. Ya’ll be sure to let me know when the revolution start. I want to make sure I have on CNN with some popcorn so I can see the government wipe ya’ll off the face of the earth:)
And I agree with DS that party affiliation won’t make a difference when politicians start using their new found power in earnest.
Dan Hamilton: “Then you make the decision. Is it worth it. If it is you get rid of the Politician. After this happens a couple of time the Politicians decide the money just is’t worth their life.”
Wait, what are you talking about? murder?
I am not the only person discussing the 2nd Amendment in response to this issue AND I in no way advocate using violence to solve this problem. I am simply drawing attention to the TRUE history behind the 2nd Amendment and why it REALLY was installed as a protection for the people.
Others are bravely bringing up the caustic topic during primetime in response to my talking points? Try Rush, Boortz and Savage.
I think they are pretty sane with respect to Conservative THOUGHT and as predicted have called out a lot of this liberal buffoonery on their shows.
I realize I can be a bit “spicy” for some and certainly for Ms. Barber, but I am trying to find the civil middle on these inflammaory topics.
Ignoring the hardcore realities however, won’t change the outcome of bad decisions and apathy.
James,
If I don’t have a point, then why are you arguing it?
I agree, DS. Conservatives in VA will definitely make use of it. They want land use restrictions because they don’t want all those city folks moving anywhere near them.
And I don’t blame them.
Yep. City folks are all immoral filthy heathens who don’t know the about being friendly, neighborly, or kind.
Of courst not ALL. Just most.
I’m in VA and I’ll be one of them
(I couldn’t help it)
The country bumpkins should be grateful. Now they will get running water and indoor toilets.
Country bumpkins? Have you seen their houses, DS? Can’t believe you’re falling for that dated stereotype. I guess you don’t get out to the exurbs of VA that much.
I have no idea why you’re so bitter about this. People work hard to live a certain way and maintain a certain lifestyle. Why would they want to live around the very creeps they worked to get away from?
Blog hostess privilege: I get the last word of this tonight. I may re-open in the morning.
Comments on this entry are closed.