Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (687091)	6/24/2005 12:39:14 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Then why the law and why does the Seattle Times mislead us? M Court OKs land seizure for private projects By Charles Lane The Washington Post WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments can force property owners to sell and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the project's success is not guaranteed. The landmark 5-4 ruling provided the strong affirmation state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed. The ruling is expected to have no effect in Washington, which forbids the use of eminent domain for private development. At least seven other states forbid using eminent domain unless it is to eliminate blight. Opponents ranging from property-rights activists to advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use." But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority yesterday, cited past cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include such traditional projects as bridges or highways as well as slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment. Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Stevens' opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, "[t]he 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." O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The ruling resolved one of the remaining high-profile issues this term. The court is expected to rule Monday on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property. The redevelopment program at issue in the case, Kelo v. New London, Conn., is the city's plan to turn 90 acres of waterfront land into office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities near a new $300 million research center being built by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The complex was expected to generate hundreds of jobs and, city officials say, $680,000 in property-tax revenue. New London, a former whaling town with a population of about 24,000, is reeling from the 1996 closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had employed more than 1,500 people. But owners of 15 homes on 1.54 acres of the proposed site had refused to go. One, Susette Kelo, had extensively remodeled her home and wanted to stay for its view of the water. Another, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life. The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the city's plan, so the homeowners, represented by lawyers from the libertarian Institute for Justice, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the institute, the New London plan, which was approved by the city council in 2000, is typical of "eminent-domain abuse" which has spawned more than 10,000 threatened or filed condemnations involving a transfer of property from one private party to another in 41 states between 1998 and 2002. Scott Bullock, an attorney for the institute, said the only recourse for property owners facing condemnation under eminent domain would be to sue in state court based on the property-rights provisions of each state's constitution. New London City Manager Richard Brown said he was "very pleased." He said the city hopes to relaunch its redevelopment plan, which has lost money so far, partly because of the litigation. Kelo said yesterday she wasn't going to give up the struggle. archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com