Lord Help Us--The Supreme Court Strikes Again
Hi ho, MMMLogerinos!
Weather: Sun breaks, breeeeeezy and cool. Could be a topless Red Therapy day, but I'm under deadline.
Supreme Court Ruling Paves Way for Cities to Seize Homes
I just got the following very disturbing news item off Comcast.com news. The following is condensed from the article . . .
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday 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 represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They 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.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
Your Neighborhood and Mine
Real estate is booming here in the Puget Sound and prices of homes increasing exponentially, or so it seems. There is less raw land to develop due to a number of restrictive bills and developers are turning to older neighborhoods, buying houses piecemeal and throwing up twenty-five half-million dollar homes in the space that four or five older homes on larger lots occupied. These people no doubt sold their homes for "tidy" sums, compared to what they paid for them thirty years ago.
With today's Supreme Court ruling, what if folks don't want to sell, because where are they going to find another home they can afford for the couple of hundred thousand they'd receive? Can the development corporation simply team up with the city and declare eminent domain--for the greater good of the community--the people must sell their homes to make way for bigger, better that is good for all and that "all" being the developer and city coffers?
If you want to get a different and perhaps more valid perspective on the business/government partnership, watch the Ferengi on Deep Space Nine reruns on SPIKE TV. Their entire society is built around the Laws of Acquisition, a not so funhouse mirror of our world's corporatocracy.
Like the man said, "Business is a sporty game won only by those who set the rules."If I were to believe that, I'd have to take the formula for success sign off my monitor that I endeavor to work by everyday: Realistic Goals + Hard Word + Scholarly Perseverance = Solid Achievement, Dependability & Trust.
I'm not ready to give up on the idea that I create my world, my reality with every thought I have and that I'm responsible for what I create. I'm determined to see today's Supreme Court ruling as another wakeup call to what others are creating that I may not want to co-create with 'em, such as making people sell their homes to put up another shopping mall.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Ciao, ciao, mmmmmmmmmmmmelinda
Weather: Sun breaks, breeeeeezy and cool. Could be a topless Red Therapy day, but I'm under deadline.
Supreme Court Ruling Paves Way for Cities to Seize Homes
I just got the following very disturbing news item off Comcast.com news. The following is condensed from the article . . .
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday 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 represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They 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.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
Your Neighborhood and Mine
Real estate is booming here in the Puget Sound and prices of homes increasing exponentially, or so it seems. There is less raw land to develop due to a number of restrictive bills and developers are turning to older neighborhoods, buying houses piecemeal and throwing up twenty-five half-million dollar homes in the space that four or five older homes on larger lots occupied. These people no doubt sold their homes for "tidy" sums, compared to what they paid for them thirty years ago.
With today's Supreme Court ruling, what if folks don't want to sell, because where are they going to find another home they can afford for the couple of hundred thousand they'd receive? Can the development corporation simply team up with the city and declare eminent domain--for the greater good of the community--the people must sell their homes to make way for bigger, better that is good for all and that "all" being the developer and city coffers?
If you want to get a different and perhaps more valid perspective on the business/government partnership, watch the Ferengi on Deep Space Nine reruns on SPIKE TV. Their entire society is built around the Laws of Acquisition, a not so funhouse mirror of our world's corporatocracy.
Like the man said, "Business is a sporty game won only by those who set the rules."If I were to believe that, I'd have to take the formula for success sign off my monitor that I endeavor to work by everyday: Realistic Goals + Hard Word + Scholarly Perseverance = Solid Achievement, Dependability & Trust.
I'm not ready to give up on the idea that I create my world, my reality with every thought I have and that I'm responsible for what I create. I'm determined to see today's Supreme Court ruling as another wakeup call to what others are creating that I may not want to co-create with 'em, such as making people sell their homes to put up another shopping mall.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Ciao, ciao, mmmmmmmmmmmmelinda
posted by MMMelinda at 9:36 AM
