Supreme Court Decision on Property Rights

[kapkomet]

I'm surprised no one has talked about this...

 

I think it's BULL s***.

 

Discuss... and I'll join in the fray later saying why I think what I do on this issue.

[southsider2k5]

It is absolute bulls***. Property tax roles are not enough for preeminent domain. This ruling pisses me off to no end. Its one thing for an interestate, it is another for a business.

[Soxy]

Could someone provide a brief on the decision (in layman's terms)?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Could someone provide a brief on the decision (in layman's terms)?

 

From the Libertarian Party mailing list...

The Supreme Court ruled today that local governments have broad power to confiscate private property in the name of "economic development."

 

They handed down a 5-4 ruling against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who claimed the city is trying to illegally force them to sell their property. The city wants to make way for a hotel, an office building and other privately funded facilities.

 

Government agencies including city and county governments have long been allowed to condemn private property so that public buildings, roads and other infrastructure can be built. Called "eminent domain," this practice is constitutional as long as the power is exercised strictly in accordance with the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause." However, the new ruling will allow local governments to claim property for the benefit for private entities, rather than restricting eminent domain to acquiring land for public use.

[Soxy]

From the Libertarian Party mailing list...

The Supreme Court ruled today that local governments have broad power to confiscate private property in the name of "economic development."

 

They handed down a 5-4 ruling against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who claimed the city is trying to illegally force them to sell their property. The city wants to make way for a hotel, an office building and other privately funded facilities.

 

Government agencies including city and county governments have long been allowed to condemn private property so that public buildings, roads and other infrastructure can be built. Called "eminent domain," this practice is constitutional as long as the power is exercised strictly in accordance with the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause."  However, the new ruling will allow local governments to claim property for the benefit for private entities, rather than restricting eminent domain to acquiring land for public use.

Thanks.

 

That is total bulls***.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I bet whoever the local officials who oversee this stuff are gonna see some increases in their campaign finances.

[Yossarian]

A horrible, abominable decision that could lead to bloodshed. There has to be some legislative relief. First you have so called conservatives taking medical marijuana away from pain wracked, terminally ill patients. Now you have so called liberals taking away grandma's house so someone can build a stripmall. It's high time for a real third party to take charge in this country. Remember Peter Finch in the movie Network? Well everyone should be "mad as hell."

[Cerbaho-WG]

Absolutely f***ing retarded decision.

[kapkomet]

A horrible, abominable decision that could lead to bloodshed. There has to be some legislative relief. First you have so called conservatives taking medical marijuana away from pain wracked, terminally ill patients. Now you have so called liberals taking away grandma's house so someone can build a stripmall. It's high time for a real third party to take charge in this country. Remember Peter Finch in the movie Network? Well everyone should be "mad as hell."

Yea, we're mad as hell and powerless. Or something.

 

All kidding aside, too many people in this people are baaaa baaaaaa baaaaa sheep.

 

They don't know enough to be mad. And that's the most pathetic of all.

 

Now you have that representation in the highest court of the land, on both sides of many issues.

 

These assf***s have no concern what-so-ever of a document written 216 years ago, they only care about society today. It's that short-sitedness that will lead to the downfall of this country.

[Soxbadger]

Actually read the decision before you believe what the newspapers say.

 

The decision states that the govt can use eminent domain for mixed public and private use. This is nothing new, as it was already the same law that Connecticut had, and was the same ruling the Supreme Court of Conn. handed down in a decision, with the dissenters not arguing the govt went beyond what it could do, but instead that the there should be a different burden on the govt in proving it was necessary.

 

The reality is, this law changes nothing. It would be like saying when they use eminent domain to make a highway that they can not make any of those islands because those are private and not for public use. This is just the status quo, and the whole opinion is based on state law.

 

So if Illinois, or any other state does not have a law that says the govt can use eminent domain for private use, than the Supreme Court would have gone the other way.

 

The simple answer is, if the citizens of Conn do not like it, they should have their legislature change the law, instead of having the Supreme Court try and dabble in state affairs such as this. The Supreme Court of the US does not know the intiricacies of the financial plan as well as the local govt or the state govt.

 

How many newspapers sell with the headline:

 

"New Supreme Court ruling means that the law will be the same as it always was"

 

SB

[kapkomet]

I read the case and (parts) of the opinion by John Paul Stevens and I just about died. I'll give you that the parts may have been the juicy parts and out of context, but I don't think so from what I've read.

 

I just can't see how property tax considerations gives a local government the right to excercise emminent domain, which is what this boils down to.

[kapkomet]

Of course I'll talk out of both sides of my mouth, but what about the houses that are being destroyed in Arlington Texas for a new Cowboys Stadium? How's this different?

 

Just curious about the responses about this.

[southsider2k5]

I read the case and (parts) of the opinion by John Paul Stevens and I just about died.  I'll give you that the parts may have been the juicy parts and out of context, but I don't think so from what I've read.

 

I just can't see how property tax considerations gives a local government the right to excercise emminent domain, which is what this boils down to.

 

The big problem I have with it, is that it can be used for private gain. Public good is one thing, profit is another. If someone doesn't want to sell, they shouldn't have to for a new business.

[Soxbadger]

Kap,

 

Full Ruling

 

Its 37 pages so its kind of long.

 

If you are arguing that the govt should never be able to use eminent domain, that is one thing.

 

But if you argue eminent domain should be allowed for "public use", then what criteria do you use for that. Does it have to be 100% public, because that would mean that many railroad tracks etc could not be used by private companies because the land used to make the railroad was taken through eminent domain.

 

The facts of this case are, part of the land is going to be for public use, marina, museums, etc. The other part is going to be for private use, hotels, residences, etc.

 

They want to combine the 2 so they can make a greater economic impact. Their economy has been destroyed by the closing of military bases and by general decline, and the govt is trying to increase jobs and give the area a little boost.

 

The ruling states pretty explicitly that it only applies to mixed usage of public and private, and while the sensationalisation of the newspapers would make you believe it allows the govt to take your house to sell it to microsoft, that just is not the case. There would have to be some public use involved, and a govt plan passed by the legislature which falls in line with state law.

 

 

Here are some snippets from the opinion,

 

Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property [*15]  from one private party to another if future "use by the public" is the purpose of the taking; the condemnation of land for a railroad with common-carrier duties is a familiar example. Neither of these propositions, however, determines the disposition of this case.

 

As for the first proposition, the City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners' land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. See Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245, 81 L. Ed. 2d 186, 104 S. Ct. 2321 ("A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void"); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 41 L. Ed. 489, 17 S. Ct. 130 (1896). n5 Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. The takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a "carefully considered" development plan. 268 Conn., at 54, 843 A. 2d, at 536. The trial judge and all the members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that there was no evidence of an illegitimate purpose in this case. n6 Therefore,  [*16]  as was true of the statute challenged in Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245, 81 L. Ed. 2d 186, 104 S. Ct. 2321, the City's development plan was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals."

 

On the other hand, this is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land -- at least not in its entirety -- to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers. But although such a projected use would be sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public." Id., at 244, 81 L. Ed. 2d 186, 104 S. Ct. 2321. Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?), n7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society. n8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook  [*18]  Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158-164, 41 L. Ed. 369, 17 S. Ct. 56 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company's use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes' opinion for the Court stressed "the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test." Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531, 50 L. Ed. 581, 26 S. Ct. 301 (1906). n9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since. n10

 

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.

 

Those who govern the City were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference. The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, n12 the City is endeavoring to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational uses of land, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the City has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the comprehensive character of the plan, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of our review, it is appropriate for us, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves [*27]  a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.

 

Okay so who made Steven's a state rights, deferring to the legislature justice?

 

Damn those activist liberal judges upholding what a city legislature passed, and what the state law allows.

 

It is interesting to read an opinion by a judge, because I promise you that each of them will make a good to great argument for their side. I do not think this opinion is the end of the world, in fact I think it represents the status quo.

 

The court did not go as far to say that a govt could take for a completely private use, just that the govt could use the takings clause for a mixed public and private use, such as the development in question here. Parts, the marina, US coast guard museum, and state park are clearly public. The residentual homes, restuarants, etc are clearly private.

 

But what the court is trying to say, is that the legislature of the city should be able to chose its own destiny. If they pass an urban development plan, and part of that plan is public, they should be able to use imminent domain to make sure the entire project can be finished. What point would it be to make a marina, musuem, etc if there are not going to be restuarants, hotels to take advantage of all the city money that is being spent?

 

I agree that the govt should have less rights taking peoples land. But when the state law allows it, when the state supreme court does not find it was excessive, but instead only questions what burden the govt should have in whether they can take, and when the city legislature passes it, you should give deferrence to the state.

 

In a matter such as this, where it is so close on either side, the state and local level probably know what is better than the federal supreme court.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Also you have to remember, the only parts of the opinion that are binding are those which all 5 agree with. So any parts where only 4 of the majority or less agree, are not really law. I know it is very complicated and unfortunately newspapers do not hire lawyers to write the pieces on Supreme Court cases, but generally they just take the most outrageous idea and run with it.

 

How many are really going to go to their local law library and the ruling and read all 37 pages?

 

Dont believe the hype, read for yourself.

 

SB

[Yossarian]

They've taken the "for public use" clause of the 5th amendment and destroyed it. Any other reading of this decision is foolish and dangerously naive. Nothing changed? I doubt it as local governments will probably go on a feeding frenzy. On another note a very close friend of mine had his own battle with his local government over "eminent domain". He won. If this decision had come down prior to his battle, I doubt he would have prevailed. As it was, he had to fight like hell and went through an Orwellian, Kafka like experience. There is no way to spin this. It's a dangerously terrible decision.

[EvilMonkey]

And so it begins.................................

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/3239024

 

June 23, 2005, 11:35PM

 

Freeport moves to seize 3 properties

Court's decision empowers the city to acquire the site for a new marina

By THAYER EVANS

Chronicle Correspondent

 

FREEPORT - 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.

 

 

The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

 

"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together," Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city's depressed downtown area.

 

Over the years, Freeport's lack of commercial and retail businesses has meant many of its 13,500 residents travel to neighboring Lake Jackson, which started as a planned community in 1943, to spend money. But the city is hopeful the marina will spawn new economic growth.

 

"This will be the engine that will drive redevelopment in the city," City Manager Ron Bottoms said.

 

Lee Cameron, director of the city's Economic Development Corp., said the marina is expected to attract $60 million worth of hotels, restaurants and retail establishments to the city's downtown area and create 150 to 250 jobs. He said three hotels, two of which have "high interest," have contacted the city about building near the marina.

 

"It's all dependent on the marina," Cameron said. "Without the marina, (the hotels) aren't interested. With the marina, (the hotels) think it's a home run."

 

Since September 2003, the city has been locked in a legal battle to acquire a 300-by-60-foot tract of land along the Old Brazos River near the Pine Street bridge as well as a 200-foot tract and 100-foot tract along the river through eminent domain from Western Seafood Co. and Trico Seafood Co.

 

Eminent domain is the right of a government to take private property for public use upon payment of the fair market value.

 

The tracts of land would be used for a planned 800- to 900-slip marina to be built by Freeport Marina, a group that that includes Dallas developer Hiram Walker Royall. He would buy the property from the city and receive a $6 million loan from the city to develop the project.

 

Freeport Marina would then invest $1 million in the project and contribute a 1,100-foot tract of land, valued at $750,000, to it before receiving the loan.

 

Western Seafood spokesman Wright Gore III said the wholesale shrimp company was disappointed with the Supreme Court decision, but believes the ruling does not apply to the city's eminent domain proceedings.

 

He said there is a provision in state law that allows residents of a city to a circulate a petition to call a vote on whether the city can take property using eminent domain.

 

"(This) is far, far from over," Gore said. "(We) would have liked to have seen a victory on the federal level, but it is by no means a settled issue."

 

Gore said Western Seafood's 30,000-square-foot processing facility, which sits on the 300-by-60-foot tract, would be forced to close if the land were seized.

 

That facility earns about $40 million annually, and Western Seafood has been in business in Freeport since 1946, he said.

 

City officials, however, have said the marina will still allow Western Seafood and Trico Seafood, which did not return telephone calls or e-mail Thursday, to operate their facilities.

 

In August, U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent ruled against a lawsuit filed by Western Seafood seeking to stop the city's eminent domain proceedings. The seafood company then appealed its case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, a request that initially was denied.

 

The appeals court then decided it would take the case, but not rule on it until after the Supreme Court made a ruling on the New London, Conn., case.

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

If this new project will 'create' 150-200 new jobs, how many will it eliminate from the Western Seafood? And will the new jobs pay as well, or will they be minimum wage jobs such as bellhops, maids, etc? And the deal struck here sounds fishy. City steals land, sells to Marina Group. Marina Group then gets a loan to build marina, plus donates land BACK to city. If this project is such a good thng, why can't the Marina Group just BUY the land from Western?

 

Anyone with waterfront property should just sell now, before the local governments try to steal it for a park or a memorial, or worse yet, a strip mall.

[jackie hayes]

For those who know law: Would it be possible for a local government to commit itself to not seize land by eminent domain, for example, by entering into a contract with a developer stipulating that for the next 100 years the government would not exercise its power to seize the land? Or would this be just another property right, no more sacred than the basic recognition of land ownership, that the local officials could break according to the same rules by which they seize property?

 

Just an interesting question, in theory.

[southsider2k5]

For those who know law:  Would it be possible for a local government to commit itself to not seize land by eminent domain, for example, by entering into a contract with a developer stipulating that for the next 100 years the government would not exercise its power to seize the land?  Or would this be just another property right, no more sacred than the basic recognition of land ownership, that the local officials could break according to the same rules by which they seize property?

 

Just an interesting question, in theory.

 

If I understand this correctly, it is the local government that has to declare eminent domain. I don't think a business can do it on their own.

[jackie hayes]

If I understand this correctly, it is the local government that has to declare eminent domain.  I don't think a business can do it on their own.

No, I was thinking about a contract that commits the local government to NOT declare eminent domain. Say, for 100 years. Then 60 years down the line, new people in the government, new situation -- and they want to take the land back again, for some other purpose. Basically, I want to know if the original contract would be enforceable.

 

The impulse is to say, well, duh, of course it is. (At least that's my impulse.) But one might argue (I guess) that a government cannot legally enter into an agreement that would prevent it from choosing the best course of action for its "public".

 

Btw, one thing that's sad about this is that very little of the new development sounds truly creative. So much of this sounds like local governments attempting to cannibalize the business of the town next door.

[JUGGERNAUT]

If I'm wrong let me know but doesn't this decision simply shift the power from the Fed to the States on this issue? There is nothing in the ruling or in Federal law that I'm aware that would prevent states from passing laws to protect private property rights against eminent domain.

 

If the people in Conn feel strongly about this then they can contact their local congressman & voice their opinion & their intent to vote them out of office if something isn't done. The power rightfully resides with the elected representatives of the citizens of Conn. From that perspective it's not a grievous decision.

 

As an environmentalist the ramifications are disastrous. I've not read the particulars but I can see where this decision can be used to invoke eminent domain to skirt EPA laws & guidelines. Consider all of the property in America owned & operated by the Federal government. Can states now use eminent domain to annex Federal property?

[jackie hayes]

As an environmentalist the ramifications are disastrous.  I've not read the particulars but I can see where this decision can be used to invoke eminent domain to skirt EPA laws & guidelines.  Consider all of the property in America owned & operated by the Federal government.  Can states now use eminent domain to annex Federal property?

I'm certain that can't happen. It's "eminent" domain b/c governments are eminent compared to citizens. The state government is not eminent compared to the federal government.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I'm certain that can't happen.  It's "eminent" domain b/c governments are eminent compared to citizens.  The state government is not eminent compared to the federal government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would agree except for the justification the court used: economic viability.

They basically stated that if a state has a clear economic interest in annexing lands it's ok. It will be hard to uphold that justification against private citizens & not apply it to federal lands as well. It's seems like a tug-of-war will ensue.

[jackie hayes]

I would agree except for the justification the court used: economic viability.

They basically stated that if a state has a clear economic interest in annexing lands it's ok.  It will be hard to uphold that justification against private citizens & not apply it to federal lands as well.  It's seems like a tug-of-war will ensue.

The argument was over the fifth amendment. Fifth amendment specifies "private property." Federal government property is not "private." End of story.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The argument was over the fifth amendment.  Fifth amendment specifies "private property."  Federal government property is not "private."  End of story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Until a state tries it.

[southsider2k5]

And for those who didn't think Eminent Domain would be abused... this is news from my hometown, written by the Michigan City News Dispatch

 

City may take 'Icehouse' through eminent domain 

 

By Jason Miller, The News-Dispatch 

 

The debate a local real estate agent and her client has with the Michigan City Redevelopment Commission over a sought-after piece of property could soon become moot today.

 

That could happen if the commission decides to take the property by eminent domain.

 

Commission attorney Michael Bergerson told The News-Dispatch Friday the board would vote today on whether to condemn and take several properties along the Trail Creek corridor.

 

The area on the boulevard between U.S. 12 and Eighth Street is coveted by the city, which has been trying for years to buy several parcels it hopes to redevelop.

 

Blocksom Inc., another property on the stretch the city wants to buy, will not be included in today's discussion, Bergerson said.

 

Local Realtor Shirley Kmiecek said this week her client - a Chicago developer - had signed an offer and given an earnest-money deposit to Tom Stahoviak, who owns the property at Eighth and Michigan known as "the Icehouse."

 

She said her client was then told by Bergerson "in no uncertain terms" the property was not for sale.

 

"Mike has just about threatened everyone involved with this," Kmiecek said.

 

Bergerson disputed the claim Friday.

 

"As far as I know, they signed a contract with (Stahoviak)," he said. "I was under the impression they were going to do their due diligence to determine the environmental issues there.

 

"Then (the developer) just walked away. I didn't tell him it wasn't for sale."

 

According to Michigan City Planner John Pugh, the city made an offer on the property earlier this year, but withdrew it when inspectors found pollution on the site.

 

After finding ways to secure money to pay for cleanup of the site, the city made another offer recently. Pugh said Bergerson likely was informing the potential buyer that cleaning up the mess would be costly.

 

"The cost to clean it up essentially leaves no value to the property," Pugh said. "We found severe pollution at the site and it's very costly to clean up. That cost is the owner's responsibility."

 

Stahoviak wouldn't comment Friday, saying he wanted to ride out the potential sale of the property before talking about it publicly.

 

According to Kmiecek, the sale price on the property is $850,000. If the city decides to take the property, a court will decide a fair value for it.

 

"Anybody who buys that property should be aware of the environmental issues, and I'm pretty sure that's what Mike was telling them," Pugh said. "Mike pointed out the environmental problems and told them they should be prepared to spend between $250,000 and a half-million dollars to clean them up."

 

The Chicago developer who hoped to buy the property was also interested in buying other properties in Michigan City, but was turned away by the city's perceived refusal to sell the Icehouse property, according to Kmiecek.

 

That developer didn't return calls to The News-Dispatch.