Desertdog
Member
I wonder if Judge Suter will think differently now. 
High court asked to rehear Kelo case
Petition argues that abuses dismissed by majority already occurring
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45332
The Connecticut homeowners who lost the landmark Supreme Court eminent domain decision filed a petition yesterday for a rehearing.
The families want the high court to reconsider the 5-4 ruling they say already has "opened up the floodgates to eminent domain abuse."
"We will be the first to admit that our chances of success with this motion are extremely small, but if there is any case that deserves to reheard by the Supreme Court, it is the Kelo case," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice.
Bullock called the June 23 decision the worst in years.
"Hopefully the court will see the abuse of power that it has unleashed and will reconsider its misguided and dangerous opinion," he said.
The case of Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., allows the municipal government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to make way for an office complex that will provide economic benefits, including more tax revenue for the city.
While the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge.
The new petition argues that consequent abuses dismissed by the majority opinion as hypothetical already are occurring throughout the country.
In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicted a world in which a Motel 6 can be taken for a Ritz Carlton and homes for a shopping mall, noted Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the institute and co-counsel in the Kelo case.
The Institute for Justice cited many examples of lower-tax producing businesses being taken for higher-tax producing ones since the Supreme Court's ruling.
Hours after the Kelo decision, officials in Freeport, Texas, began legal filings to seize two family-owned seafood companies to make way for a more upscale business – an $8 million private boat marina.
In Sunset Hills, Mo., homes already are being taken for shopping malls after the city council voted July 12 to allow the condemnation of 85 homes and small businesses. Also in Missouri, the city of Arnold plans to take 30 homes and 15 small businesses, including the Arnold Veterans of Foreign Wars post, for a Lowe's hardware store and a strip mall.
The Institute for Justice argues that for less wealthy individuals and businesses, the cost of litigation will very quickly exceed the value of the property, which is why nearly all appellate public use cases in the state courts involve challenges by larger business owners.
Homeowner and small business cases, when they are brought at all, typically involve rare pro bono or public interest litigation.
"Rarely does a Supreme Court decision generate such uniform and nearly universal outrage," said Chip Mellor, president of Institute for Justice. "Clearly, Americans understand just how threatening the court's decision is for ordinary home and small business owners everywhere."
If the court will not rehear the case, the homeowners at least want the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court to be vacated and allow more evidence to be submitted about the takings in the case.
The institute argues that the U.S. Supreme Court announced new standards in the use of eminent domain for economic development in Kelo, and four years have passed since the trial in the case.
One week after the Kelo decision, the institute announced a $3 million "Hands Off My Home" campaign to halt eminent domain for private profit.
The group says the campaign will "focus the universal wave of opposition to the Kelo ruling to, among other actions, ask state courts to enforce the "public use" limitations found in every state constitution and to support citizen activists nationwide who are urging their state and local officials to set stricter standards for the use of eminent domain."
Already, according to the institute, lawmakers in 25 states have introduced or promised to introduce legislation reforming the use of eminent domain for private development.
The institute says, however that unless all 50 states enact such legislation, homeowners could be left in jeopardy.
The U.S. Congress also is considering several bills to prohibit the use of federal funds for municipal projects that use eminent domain for private development.
High court asked to rehear Kelo case
Petition argues that abuses dismissed by majority already occurring
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45332
The Connecticut homeowners who lost the landmark Supreme Court eminent domain decision filed a petition yesterday for a rehearing.
The families want the high court to reconsider the 5-4 ruling they say already has "opened up the floodgates to eminent domain abuse."
"We will be the first to admit that our chances of success with this motion are extremely small, but if there is any case that deserves to reheard by the Supreme Court, it is the Kelo case," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice.
Bullock called the June 23 decision the worst in years.
"Hopefully the court will see the abuse of power that it has unleashed and will reconsider its misguided and dangerous opinion," he said.
The case of Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., allows the municipal government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to make way for an office complex that will provide economic benefits, including more tax revenue for the city.
While the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge.
The new petition argues that consequent abuses dismissed by the majority opinion as hypothetical already are occurring throughout the country.
In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicted a world in which a Motel 6 can be taken for a Ritz Carlton and homes for a shopping mall, noted Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the institute and co-counsel in the Kelo case.
The Institute for Justice cited many examples of lower-tax producing businesses being taken for higher-tax producing ones since the Supreme Court's ruling.
Hours after the Kelo decision, officials in Freeport, Texas, began legal filings to seize two family-owned seafood companies to make way for a more upscale business – an $8 million private boat marina.
In Sunset Hills, Mo., homes already are being taken for shopping malls after the city council voted July 12 to allow the condemnation of 85 homes and small businesses. Also in Missouri, the city of Arnold plans to take 30 homes and 15 small businesses, including the Arnold Veterans of Foreign Wars post, for a Lowe's hardware store and a strip mall.
The Institute for Justice argues that for less wealthy individuals and businesses, the cost of litigation will very quickly exceed the value of the property, which is why nearly all appellate public use cases in the state courts involve challenges by larger business owners.
Homeowner and small business cases, when they are brought at all, typically involve rare pro bono or public interest litigation.
"Rarely does a Supreme Court decision generate such uniform and nearly universal outrage," said Chip Mellor, president of Institute for Justice. "Clearly, Americans understand just how threatening the court's decision is for ordinary home and small business owners everywhere."
If the court will not rehear the case, the homeowners at least want the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court to be vacated and allow more evidence to be submitted about the takings in the case.
The institute argues that the U.S. Supreme Court announced new standards in the use of eminent domain for economic development in Kelo, and four years have passed since the trial in the case.
One week after the Kelo decision, the institute announced a $3 million "Hands Off My Home" campaign to halt eminent domain for private profit.
The group says the campaign will "focus the universal wave of opposition to the Kelo ruling to, among other actions, ask state courts to enforce the "public use" limitations found in every state constitution and to support citizen activists nationwide who are urging their state and local officials to set stricter standards for the use of eminent domain."
Already, according to the institute, lawmakers in 25 states have introduced or promised to introduce legislation reforming the use of eminent domain for private development.
The institute says, however that unless all 50 states enact such legislation, homeowners could be left in jeopardy.
The U.S. Congress also is considering several bills to prohibit the use of federal funds for municipal projects that use eminent domain for private development.
PROPERTY THAT'S FOR SALE IF YOU WANT TO BUILD, DAMMIT!!"
Will post link when I locate it.
) from won't have first crack at getting it back. How's that for a governmental kick in the wherever. :banghead:
