Hold onto your homes, folks – the Supreme Court has spoken in Kelo v. New London. Municipalities can use eminent domain to take your house, so that they can move in some business development that generates more tax revenue.
A divided Supreme Court ruled today that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as handing “disproportionate influence and power” to the well-heeled in America — was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
This was predictable. Few people honestly thought after oral arguments that the Court was leaning towards vetting the God-given rights of property owners. This is your Supreme Court, folks. We have a right to practice homosexual sodomy, but the state can take your home to build a new casino for Donald Trump. So much for our putatively “right leaning” court.
Whether this decision will have local implications in connection with the downtown Ogden Wal-mart "project" is debatable. Whereas the Kelo case didn't involve a supposedly "blighted" property, the local situation did.
What is important is that the US Supreme Court has apparently abandoned, by a narrow 5-4 margin, any pretense of adhering to the "public use" requirement set forth in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution as a prerequisite for public "takings."
Significantly, Utah remains the only state in the nation which statutorily denies the power of eminent domain to local redevelopment agencies.
Expect some fierce maneauvering during the upcoming 2006 Utah Legislative session as Utah's pro-property rights forces lock horns with the the Utah League of Towns and Cities, and their allies, the big developers and globalist box stores. If individual private property rights are now to be protected in the manner envisioned by The Founders, it will be up to the State Legislatures to ensure that.
7 comments:
So wouldn't a ruling like this make our new state law against eminant domain null and void?
Here's an excellent article from the MacKinack Center for Public Policy Research which really zeros in on the today's flawed USSC decision.
No, UTmorMAN. Individual states like Utah always have the power to impose higher constitutional standards to safeguard individual property rights. Utah enacted a higher standard last spring, with the passage of Senator Bramble's SB 184.
Michigan has essentially done the same thing judicially, in Wayne County v. Hathcock, as discussed in my previous comment.
The problem of course, is that the anti-individual rights/pro-development forces will rally in the next legislative session, and argue that Utah will be hampered in its economic development efforts in the wake of Kelo, as other states move forward with what amounts to a now-expanded local eminent domain power under the federal constitution.
Ogden City Councilman Jorgensen was quoted this morning in this Scott Schwebke story.
"Although the Supreme Court decision doesn't allow the two projects to move forward, it may open the door for local officials and lawmakers to discuss the value of easing restrictions on eminent domain, said Ogden City Councilman Kent Jorgenson.
'It (the Supreme Court ruling) is a step in the right direction,' he said. 'This at least tells us they are putting the ball back in our court. Now it's our responsibility to educate the Legislature.'"
Comrade Jorgenson makes no bones about it. Seizing people's homes and businesses and tranferring them to the Wal-marts of the world is quite alright with him, so long as it increases the City's tax base, and gives the city more tax revenue to spend. Individual property rights mean nothing to him.
From his lofty seat up on the City Council dais...individual Ogden City citizens look like mere ants.
If Councilman Jorgenson ever arrives to seize may home so he can give it to Walmart, it won't be the 5th Amendment he'll have to worry about. It's the 2d Amendment he should have on his mind.
althepal, you the man....good on ya!
For anyone who's interested in the nature of the national eminent domain discussion in the rest of the USA, after the Kelo v. New London decision, the following is a short selection of blof and print media articles for your contemplation:
Unjust Decision: Kelo ruling destroys private property rights
"Liberal" Justices Turn Back Clock...To the Year 1215
The Kelo case -- Liberty: Ripped & stomped
More on Kelo and Limiting Local Government UPDATED
I've collected MANY others. The American citizen-folk aren't very happy about this. Nor should they be.
New comments are not allowed.