Supreme Court to consider eminent domain

[Judi Lynn]

Posted on Mon, Feb. 21, 2005


Supreme Court to consider eminent domain

By STEPHEN HENDERSON
Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON - It happens in city after city: Office buildings rise where mom-and-pop stores once stood and new houses replace a church or a blighted neighborhood.

The aggressive use of eminent domain - the power of the government to condemn private property for public use - is what fuels this transformation of the American landscape. And for about 50 years, courts have agreed that eminent domain can be used not only to clear land for public buildings, but also to inspire affluent private development that's deemed to be for the public good.

But on Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether the government's powers have gone too far.

At issue is a case from New London, Conn., where the city condemned a stable working-class neighborhood, which has waterfront views of the Thames River, to allow a private developer to build a swank, upper-class haven with high-priced houses and affluent commercial properties.
(snip/...)

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/10956264.htm
(Free registration is required)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ruling could redefine key tool of developers
By Jake Wagman
Of the Post-Dispatch
02/21/2005

The ability of local governments to take private property will go on trial today in the nation's highest court in a dispute that could affect development projects around the country.
(snip)

The case is being watched closely in St. Louis and around the region, where dozens of property owners have been targeted by developers using the practice of eminent domain to develop everything from strip malls to a racetrack to something called a "Media Box."
(snip)

Critics of eminent domain - including those who gathered Monday for organized protests in the St. Louis area and around the nation - argue that local governments too often abuse that power.
(snip)

Before the court is Kelo v. New London, Conn., in which the city council paved the way for a private developer to seize the homes of Susette Kelo and her neighbors in 2000. The plan was to build a hotel, condominiums and an office building to complement the arrival of a new plant for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc.
(snip/...)

~~~~ link ~~~~

[bluestateguy]

1. The Framers would be mortified

If I lived in that development I would refuse to leave.

[truthisfreedom]

2. i don't have access to this article... are they saying state supreme court

or federal?

[Judi Lynn]

3. The second article, right below the KC Star article,says the Federal Court

I included it as it doesn't require a registration.

Here's a short A.P. story on the same subject:

Residents of working class neighborhood try to hang onto their homes

SUPREME COURT A legal battle by some Connecticut residents to keep their homes has reached the Supreme Court.
Arguments are scheduled today over the New London, Connecticut, city government's attempt to seize property in a working class neighborhood for private economic development. The outcome could have significant implications around the country.

Homeowners refused to move after city officials announced plans to clear the area for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

The issue revolves around whether a government is serving a public purpose when it uses its power of eminent domain to take land. The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. This case doesn't involve compensation.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has deferred such decisions to elected state and local officials.
(snip/)

http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=2979683