Dave P
Member
Supreme Court to Hear Eminent Domain Case
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Residents trying to hang onto their homes in a working class neighborhood of New London, Conn., are waging a battle in the Supreme Court over their city government's attempt to seize property for private economic development.
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to bulldoze their residences to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to move, arguing it was an unconstitutional taking of their property.
The case's outcome will have significant implications for so-called eminent domain actions.
There have been over 10,000 instances in recent years of private property being threatened with condemnation or actually condemned by government for private use, according to the Institute for Justice. The group represents the New London residents who filed the case.
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. The New London case is not about the amount of compensation being offered, but whether the government can take the property at all.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has deferred to the decision-making of elected state and local officials.
The court said in 1954 that it is legal for urban renewal to encompass non-blighted commercial buildings in a blighted neighborhood. In 1984, the court upheld Hawaii's land reform law that broke the grip of large landowners, with property being taken and then resold to others.
More recently, many cities and towns have been accused of abusing their authority, razing nice homes to make way for parking lots for casinos and other tax-producing businesses.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. City leaders say the private development will generate tax revenue and improve the local economy.
"The undisputed facts regarding the steady deterioration of New London's economy from the 1970s onwards demonstrate the dire need for such a development project," the city told the court.
The New London neighborhood that would be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families.
Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for over 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
Anthony Williams, who is president of the National League of Cities, says the power of eminent domain is one of the most important tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods.
"Where would Baltimore be without the Inner Harbor, Kansas City without the Kansas Speedway, Canton, Miss., without its new Nissan plant?" Williams said.
The case is Kelo v. City of New London, 04-108.
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Residents trying to hang onto their homes in a working class neighborhood of New London, Conn., are waging a battle in the Supreme Court over their city government's attempt to seize property for private economic development.
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to bulldoze their residences to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to move, arguing it was an unconstitutional taking of their property.
The case's outcome will have significant implications for so-called eminent domain actions.
There have been over 10,000 instances in recent years of private property being threatened with condemnation or actually condemned by government for private use, according to the Institute for Justice. The group represents the New London residents who filed the case.
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. The New London case is not about the amount of compensation being offered, but whether the government can take the property at all.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has deferred to the decision-making of elected state and local officials.
The court said in 1954 that it is legal for urban renewal to encompass non-blighted commercial buildings in a blighted neighborhood. In 1984, the court upheld Hawaii's land reform law that broke the grip of large landowners, with property being taken and then resold to others.
More recently, many cities and towns have been accused of abusing their authority, razing nice homes to make way for parking lots for casinos and other tax-producing businesses.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. City leaders say the private development will generate tax revenue and improve the local economy.
"The undisputed facts regarding the steady deterioration of New London's economy from the 1970s onwards demonstrate the dire need for such a development project," the city told the court.
The New London neighborhood that would be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families.
Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for over 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
Anthony Williams, who is president of the National League of Cities, says the power of eminent domain is one of the most important tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods.
"Where would Baltimore be without the Inner Harbor, Kansas City without the Kansas Speedway, Canton, Miss., without its new Nissan plant?" Williams said.
The case is Kelo v. City of New London, 04-108.
when these folks moved there, it was probably because those "waterfront mansions" were on the "wrong side of the tracks" & nobody else wanted to live there, the place probably stunk!! now, all of a sudden, they're priceless. and as for baltimore being praised as such a success story, well, that "inner harbor" is a joke to everyone except the politicians! at night, when the jaboneys come out, you better have at least a suburban, equipped w/a turret!!! just ask the people in little italy. 
goes on far to often. I've spoken in other threads here of at least one case outside Boulder, and know of others from the media equally repugnant. People sue, courts side with the city/designated authority and all our liberties are eroded just a little bit more.
