Available at 
Tweet
June 23, 2005
Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.
In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.
The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales.
Justice Stevens noted that city officials had been addressing New London's sagging economic fortunes for years, and he said their decisions on how best to cope with them were entitled to wide deference.
Of course, he wrote, the city would be barred from taking one's property and transferring it to another private owner strictly for the latter's benefit. But in this instance, he said, the city is promoting a variety of commercial, residential and recreational land uses "with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts" and bring economic benefits to the general community.
In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "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."
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
Justice Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Justice O'Connor's fellow dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justice Stevens noted that the homes in question could not be considered a slum area, and that indeed some of the people have lived in their homes for decades. Rather, he said, the properties "were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area."
"In affirming the city's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation," Justice Stevens wrote, adding that local governments have the authority to refine their condemnation policies, and curb them if they wish.
The case is Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108. Susette Kelo is one of the property owners who petitioned the courts to block the condemnation of their homes in the Fort Trumbull area of New London.
"She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view," Justice Stevens noted. Another petitioner, Wilhelmina Dery, "was born in her Fort Trumbull house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life," the justice wrote. "Her husband, Charles (also a petitioner), has lived in the house since they married some 60 years ago."
Some of the affected homeowners were dismayed. "It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," Bill Von Winkle said in an interview with The Associated Press. He said he would not leave even if he sees the bulldozers coming.
Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the Institute of Justice, which represented the families, was bitterly disappointed. "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today," he said in an A.P. interview. "Our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
But New London officials said the overall good that will come from private development in the Fort Trumbull area outweighs the rights of the individual homeowners. "We're pleased," Edward O'Connell, attorney for the New London Development Corporation, told The A.P.
The seven private property owners at the center of the New London case won an order in New London Superior Court blocking the takeover of their homes, but the Connecticut Supreme Court overruled the lower court, holding that the proposed seizures were lawful under the state's municipal-development law.
When the case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on Feb. 22, Mr. Bullock maintained - unsuccessfully, as it turned out - that fostering private economic development is not a legitimate "public" use, despite incidental public benefits like a better tax base.
But Wesley W. Horton, a Hartford lawyer who represented New London before the justices, contended that economic development was indeed an appropriate public use, and that the court should not overrule the judgment of local officials.
Justice Stevens and the rest of the majority agreed. "The disposition of this case, therefore, turns on the question whether the city's development plan serves a 'public purpose,' " he wrote. "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."
The Cato Institute, a nonpartisan public policy research foundation that describes itself as dedicated to "traditional American principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace," was deeply disappointed. "With today's decision, no one's property is safe," said Roger Pilon, director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies.
Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.
In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.
The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales.
Justice Stevens noted that city officials had been addressing New London's sagging economic fortunes for years, and he said their decisions on how best to cope with them were entitled to wide deference.
Of course, he wrote, the city would be barred from taking one's property and transferring it to another private owner strictly for the latter's benefit. But in this instance, he said, the city is promoting a variety of commercial, residential and recreational land uses "with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts" and bring economic benefits to the general community.
In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "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."
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
Justice Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Justice O'Connor's fellow dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justice Stevens noted that the homes in question could not be considered a slum area, and that indeed some of the people have lived in their homes for decades. Rather, he said, the properties "were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area."
"In affirming the city's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation," Justice Stevens wrote, adding that local governments have the authority to refine their condemnation policies, and curb them if they wish.
The case is Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108. Susette Kelo is one of the property owners who petitioned the courts to block the condemnation of their homes in the Fort Trumbull area of New London.
"She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view," Justice Stevens noted. Another petitioner, Wilhelmina Dery, "was born in her Fort Trumbull house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life," the justice wrote. "Her husband, Charles (also a petitioner), has lived in the house since they married some 60 years ago."
Some of the affected homeowners were dismayed. "It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," Bill Von Winkle said in an interview with The Associated Press. He said he would not leave even if he sees the bulldozers coming.
Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the Institute of Justice, which represented the families, was bitterly disappointed. "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today," he said in an A.P. interview. "Our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
But New London officials said the overall good that will come from private development in the Fort Trumbull area outweighs the rights of the individual homeowners. "We're pleased," Edward O'Connell, attorney for the New London Development Corporation, told The A.P.
The seven private property owners at the center of the New London case won an order in New London Superior Court blocking the takeover of their homes, but the Connecticut Supreme Court overruled the lower court, holding that the proposed seizures were lawful under the state's municipal-development law.
When the case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on Feb. 22, Mr. Bullock maintained - unsuccessfully, as it turned out - that fostering private economic development is not a legitimate "public" use, despite incidental public benefits like a better tax base.
But Wesley W. Horton, a Hartford lawyer who represented New London before the justices, contended that economic development was indeed an appropriate public use, and that the court should not overrule the judgment of local officials.
Justice Stevens and the rest of the majority agreed. "The disposition of this case, therefore, turns on the question whether the city's development plan serves a 'public purpose,' " he wrote. "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."
The Cato Institute, a nonpartisan public policy research foundation that describes itself as dedicated to "traditional American principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace," was deeply disappointed. "With today's decision, no one's property is safe," said Roger Pilon, director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies.
). 
Jennifer
Comment