Yes, the left side of the SCOTUS with one swing vote just voted to take away your individual property rights and let government and big business decide for you. You now own your house at the discretion of the local city commission and WALMART. Okay, you libs, how do you defend this?

Please all, call and write your Representative and Senators to get them to get Congress to further define this with a Constitutional amendment if necessary to reverse this.

************************************************** ********************


Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 11:43 AM



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 _ assailed by dissenting Justice Sanday Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America _ was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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.

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.

"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.

O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, 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."

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

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."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

"We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

O'Connor 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.

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.

The New London neighborhood that will 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 more than 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.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

See this thread...

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=34243

What do you think about this? Are you in favor of the government taking away your rights and giving them to big business? Well, YOUR judges just told you to bend over and grab your ankles.

isn't it a conservative president with a conservative senate and conservative court.
no offense but we libs can't do much of anything right now but filibuster and last time I checked we libs weren't the ones making policy benefitting the mega coprs of Amerika

isn't it a conservative president with a conservative senate and conservative court.
no offense but we libs can't do much of anything right now but filibuster and last time I checked we libs weren't the ones making policy benefitting the mega coprs of Amerika

Nope this is basically a libbie travesty and a miss reading of our constitution...

Here are your dissenters...

Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

The question for our lawyers on the board is WHAT THE HELL HAPPENS NEXT?

we have a similar issue here in S.D. since the city funded the downtown ballpark (and the team owners and friends bought up all the then cheap real estate in the area on spec and are now making millions) they have imminent domain issues where the city is taking businesses away from people to give to same said cronies. really lame and really sad but done by a Con Gov.
I'm amazed that a Lib brought this up, I'll have to find out what they are thinkin.

Nope this is basically a libbie travesty and a miss reading of our constitution...


ClydeTri, TMB, I agree with you guys. This could open up a very sinister forced relocation of the not-so-well-off. I don't see how you can stop developers from renovating lower-income neighborhoods aided by local government. Even worse, there are lots of areas where people rent properties. They would receive NO compensation but would still have to move.

I'm a libbie but I don't like this ruling one bit.

Nope this is basically a libbie travesty and a miss reading of our constitution...

Here are your dissenters...

Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

The question for our lawyers on the board is WHAT THE HELL HAPPENS NEXT?

I think we see here the occasional alignment of interests of capitalists pigs/developers (as your side would characterize them) and leftist/statist legislators (from now on, I'll stick with "statist" instead of "socialist," to avoid your wrath about any socialist/fascist/communist/liberal distinctions). The statists want to grant the government more power, the capitalists here benefit from that power. Everyone's happy, right?

No, the libertarian/strict[er] constructionists and all the "little people" are not, at least in principle.

What happens next? Hell, the Supreme Court is the end of the line on this one. There will never be an amendment around this decision. We're stuck with it. Now every single damn locality is free to condemn away, assuming they implement some type of master plan development, not just one-off projects, and have the money to pay for it (which, I assume, they would always get from the developer wanting to do the project). That little old lady holding out on the last parcel of a big block will no longer be an issue. Almost anything could qualify as "public use" now. It's now purely a legislative decision, assuming due process is followed and fair compensation paid -- mere formalities.

I'd bet that local bodies will usually jump at the chance to see developments come in and replace low tax base dilapidated residential properties. Only a relatively few will complain, those displaced or immediately adjacent to the projects, and the legislators can spew forth all sorts of supporting statistics about how much additional tax revenue they will have and how many more jobs will be created. In the bigger picture, they look great.

More left creep. It's unfortunately inevitable, I tell you. Once a government gets so big and powerful, it's incrementally easier to grab more and more power. Every decision like this that expands that power a bit at a time becomes the new precedent and springboard for the next power grab. The slippery slope is real. You should be proud!

I think we see here the occasional alignment of interests of capitalists pigs/developers (as your side would characterize them) and leftist/statist legislators (from now on, I'll stick with "statist" instead of "socialist," to avoid your wrath about any socialist/fascist/communist/liberal distinctions). The statists want to grant the government more power, the capitalists here benefit from that power. Everyone's happy, right?

No, the libertarian/strict[er] constructionists and all the "little people" are not, at least in principle.

What happens next? Hell, the Supreme Court is the end of the line on this one. There will never be an amendment around this decision. We're stuck with it. Now every single damn locality is free to condemn away, assuming they implement some type of master plan development, not just one-off projects, and have the money to pay for it (which, I assume, they would always get from the developer wanting to do the project). That little old lady holding out on the last parcel of a big block will no longer be an issue. Almost anything could qualify as "public use" now. It's now purely a legislative decision, assuming due process is followed and fair compensation paid -- mere formalities.

I'd bet that local bodies will usually jump at the chance to see developments come in and replace low tax base dilapidated residential properties. Only a relatively few will complain, those displaced or immediately adjacent to the projects, and the legislators can spew forth all sorts of supporting statistics about how much additional tax revenue they will have and how many more jobs will be created. In the bigger picture, they look great.

More left creep. It's unfortunately inevitable, I tell you. Once a government gets so big and powerful, it's incrementally easier to grab more and more power. Every decision like this that expands that power a bit at a time becomes the new precedent and springboard for the next power grab. The slippery slope is real. You should be proud!

Why exactly should I be proud? Is my stance on this somehow ambiguous?

Leftward creep? This is a defenseless decision that hardly helps the left...it certainly doesn't do anything that in any way would offer satiety to the people like myself that you are readily stereotypifying as being proud at what the implications behind the decisions might be. What this is is government sponsered corporatism...and unfortunatly despite the current decision before us today...that movement between corporate greed and government has a haven within the right creep of bankrupcy bills, pharmaceutical bills, pension payoffs et al. Leftward creep my hairy asss...government power is government power too much can come from either side...as we currently see in almost infinite example...from both sides...the only losers in this are all of us.

And sometimes a decision by the so-called ruling elite are neither leftward or rightward...sometimes they are just apallingly bad.

Okay, I'm reading this and saying to myself, "Those G-damned, corporate loving conservatives." Then I see it's the liberals on the court who supported developers over individual home owners. WTF? It feels more like opposite day.

I really have to learn what their reasoning is because it seems utterly inconsistent with liberal principles. But apparently not.

In other words, what benefits the most people? Are quality of life issues based on municipal tax revenues, which in turn provide better public services, like schools, police, fire departments, rescue vehicles? Is a shopping center with Walmart and Home Depot better than a neighborhood of 20th century houses lovingly restored by their owner-occupants? The citizens of one of these neighborhoods outside of Cleveland, Ohio think so. A TV story awhile back said they've formed a community association to battle city plans to buy up several blocks and make a shopping center out of it, or a baseball park, or a resort hotel, or a race-track, or a footbal stadium, same difference.

The question is, 100 years from now, will that neighborhood of lovingly maintained old houses still be there, as a historical monument to the way life was in the early 20th century, or will it be a semi-blighted shopping mall, because nobocy lived by it, or a football stadium abandoned when the team was bought by another city?

Seems like city planners should consider long term as well as short term revenue benefits. What will the property be worth after the retail businesses follow the populations out of town? What would it be worth if thousands of individual property owners transformed the area into a thriving community, with tree-lined residential streets, small shops and restaurants, access to public transportation, all of which have in fact driven property values way up in many areas like this, and raised property tax revenues?

I'm sorry, but a big hotel or shopping center doesn't make a community. It takes people to do that, not big corporations. That's the issue at stake. A fancy resort or entertainment complex might satisfy short term tax revenues, but it'll stay in town only as long as the money keeps coming in. It has no loyalty to the place, no sense of community. It'll leave without regrets if the pastures are greeener in the next suburb. That's kind of the American way and it's influencing the world as well. The challenge of city planners is how to bring in factories and businesses that provide jobs and wealth for the community, and still have a place that people want to live in.

Okay, I'm reading this and saying to myself, "Those G-damned, corporate loving conservatives." Then I see it's the liberals on the court who supported developers over individual home owners. WTF? It feels more like opposite day.

I really have to learn what their reasoning is because it seems utterly inconsistent with liberal principles. But apparently not.

I think the liberal principle at work here is the granting of more power to the government -- statism. At least on economic issues, that's been fairly consistent. The issue, however, runs right down the line between an economic and civil rights issue. Sort of interesting that the most conservative judges opposed it.

I think this had zero to do with corporatism, and everything to do with a consistent bastardization of the Constitution in granting government more and more power. So, who's in favor of strict construction now?

Sorry, TMB, I threw in a little hyperbole for entertainment value.

Perhaps I don't really understand what liberalism is all about because I thought it was supposed to protect the little guy from the powerful. I thought it looked at government as the way to ensure fairness in the face of wealth and power.

Again, I'd have to read the opinion to see what the justification is. But it certainly seems to be an appalling decision.


I think the liberal principle at work here is the granting of more power to the government -- statism. At least on economic issues, that's been fairly consistent. The issue, however, runs right down the line between an economic and civil rights issue. Sort of interesting that the most conservative judges opposed it.

I think this had zero to do with corporatism, and everything to do with a consistent bastardization of the Constitution in granting government more and more power. So, who's in favor of strict construction now?

Sorry, TMB, I threw in a little hyperbole for entertainment value.

Perhaps I don't really understand what liberalism is all about because I thought it was supposed to protect the little guy from the powerful. I thought it looked at government as the way to ensure fairness in the face of wealth and power.

Again, I'd have to read the opinion to see what the justification is. But it certainly seems to be an appalling decision.

Fixed doesn't see liberalism in the way most do I have found. He seems to think that if it is any government doing it...it must mean liberal creep. But of course history does not bare this assertion out. To many liberalism is about giving people economic justice in a way that won't guarantee but will endeavor to prevent someone slapping them back down into their assigned social and or economic strata. The definition of what liberalism is or what it has done for mankind has become so twisted by people trying to change and distort its meaning that people have begun to take it for granted when the word is bandied about willy nilly as a sign of the apocopalypse.

But in fact, many governments have developed corporatists relationships with big business, ensuring that the social strata remain FIXED and movement up the ladder is rendered stagnant. So what in actuality is a huge boon for corporate interests in league in a right minded corporatist structure, somehow becomes FIXED on something else entirely...a leftward liberal creep.

All this despite the fact that as Sandra Day O'conner wrote in her dissent, ""Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

So what FIXED is trying to do, is take what is a bad decision by 5 judges and create a liberal argument for it. When in actuallity this is a dagger to the heart of liberalism as it is rightly defined, NOT as it has been FIXED in the minds of some as statism.

Well you can thank the libs on the bench for this one!

Well you can thank the libs on the bench for this one!

I don't know the make up of the city council in this case do you? What I see is a large corporate entity (developer) trying to seize the little guys houses. This has neo-con written all over it. Screw the little guy for the sake of the corporation. And excuse me but this argument that Liberals are in favor of big governemnt is hog wash. Have you been paying attention lately? What has this adminsitration brought you? Huge new divisions in the government, huge new entitlement programs, record spending. Don't lay this one at the feet of the "liberals" Also what makes a "liberal" judge? Just because a judge doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade does not make them "liberal"

It is a bad decision that will lead to huge corruption in land development. What I envision is: developer wants to but up a hotel complex on the beach. But the area already has private residences. Developer approaches city counsel with visions of huge property tax increases from new hotel. Private property owners are now removed and houses torn down for the sake of profit.

Fixed doesn't see liberalism in the way most do I have found. He seems to think that if it is any government doing it...it must mean liberal creep. But of course history does not bare this assertion out. To many liberalism is about giving people economic justice in a way that won't guarantee but will endeavor to prevent someone slapping them back down into their assigned social and or economic strata. The definition of what liberalism is or what it has done for mankind has become so twisted by people trying to change and distort its meaning that people have begun to take it for granted when the word is bandied about willy nilly as a sign of the apocopalypse.

But in fact, many governments have developed corporatists relationships with big business, ensuring that the social strata remain FIXED and movement up the ladder is rendered stagnant. So what in actuality is a huge boon for corporate interests in league in a right minded corporatist structure, somehow becomes FIXED on something else entirely...a leftward liberal creep.

All this despite the fact that as Sandra Day O'conner wrote in her dissent, ""Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

So what FIXED is trying to do, is take what is a bad decision by 5 judges and create a liberal argument for it. When in actuallity this is a dagger to the heart of liberalism as it is rightly defined, NOT as it has been FIXED in the minds of some as statism.

Well, I'd guess that most liberals would like to think their ideology is all about helping the little guy, but I think there is something different occuring in the ultimate implementation, though. Ultimately, how the little guy is protected is through more and more government regulation and control. Maybe this, too, is an example of "unintended consequences," the consequence of years of precedent of allowing government more control. It's sort of an "oops, we didn't mean for that to happen," though it's consistent with the trends established by the more liberal judges and legislators. This is an example of the reasoning behing my type of ideology of more limited government, no matter what the perceived benefit is at the time. The way things work, you can't approve more government control 99% of the time, then object when you get something like this, which is legally consistent with the other 99% of the decisions. A combination of slippery slope and precedent.

I understand that liberals may not like this decision, but even if unintended, they (in a global sense, not just you guys here) helped to create it.

I'm a liberal (and I rarely post in "non-biking"), so I cannot believe I am writing this, but...

Isn't this as much about local control as big govt' versus the little guy? I admit I only skimmed the responses, but this one struck me:

<i>A TV story awhile back said they've formed a community association to battle city plans to buy up several blocks and make a shopping center out of it, or a baseball park, or a resort hotel, or a race-track, or a footbal stadium, same difference.</i>

Isn't that the way it should be? The city and/or a developer comes up with an idea. The idea is debated in an open forum. If the residents don't like it, they band together to fight it. I don't want the U.S. Supreme Court necessarily telling me what can and cannot happen in my own neighborhood. They don't know where I live.

Here in NYC, we just defeated the ludicrous new stadium proposal. The Jets made a sweetheart deal to buy some transportation agency land and build a new stadium that the majority of people did not want. One of the state assemblymen who represents Lower Manhattan listened to his voters when they said, "You can't spend money on a stadium when Lower Manhattan is still a mess from 9/11." The assemblyman killed the Jets stadium. He put his politcal career on the line, too, because he pissed off Mayor Bloomberg.

Shouldn't local people decide what happens in their own neighborhood? I know it seems like the Wal-Marts of the world hold all the cards, but I can find you many examples of idiotic development deals being defeated by locals.

April 2005--Boston residents stop new Fenway Park plans
Jan 2005--Arlington, Tex., stops Wal-Mart
April 2004--Inglewood, Cal., stops Wal-Mart.
March 2003--Taos, N.M., stops Wal-Mart

Once a government gets so big and powerful, it's incrementally easier to grab more and more power. Every decision like this that expands that power a bit at a time becomes the new precedent and springboard for the next power grab. The slippery slope is real. You should be proud!

I could not agree with you more. Which is why I am mystified that you are such a Bush fan. The US Government has never been bigger and has never grabbed more power in the history of this nation. How you can rationalize this as leftward creep baffles me, but then conservatives these days are like stock brokers--they can rationalize anything.

TH I was referring to the SC.

Listen and participate without leaving your office ...

Impact of Kelo v. City of New London
Eminent Domain Expanded, Public Use Redefined

A Live 90-Minute Telephone Conference
with Interactive Q&A Session

Wednesday, July 13, 2005
1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Eastern

LINK HERE for the program outline

Early registration discount deadline - July 1
CLE credit available for an additional fee*

Presented by: Municipal Litigation Reporter
and the Legal Publishing Group of Strafford Publications


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 23, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local government may seize
private property under the public use provision in the Fifth Amendment. The Court found the
proposed development plan of the "distressed municipality" of City of New London, Conn.,
qualified as a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause.

Under New London's plan, the city will seize private property for private development of an upscale
waterfront complex in its effort to revitalize the city. The property owners fought the seizure, arguing
the city was taking their land for the benefit of businesses, not for a legitimate public use.

Listen and participate from your office phone as our authoritative panelists outline the main points of the
decision and address these and other key questions:

Has the Court's ruling made "public use" meaningless? Where
is the line between "public" and "private" property use?
Does the decision leave all private property vulnerable? May
any property now be taken for the benefit of another private party?
Is it necessary for a pre-condemnation use of the targeted property
to inflict an affirmative harm on society to meet the public use standard?
With the states' ability to enact restrictions on the reach of the eminent
domain power, will this fight move from the court to the statehouse?
How will this decision affect future eminent domain cases throughout the U.S.?
Following the speaker presentations, you'll have an opportunity to get answers to your specific questions
during the Q&A portion of the program.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Register by July 1 at the special early discount rate
of only $247. ($50 off the regular rate of $297)

Mention Program Code IPSZZ1 to get the special rate.

Fee covers an unlimited number of professionals at your location.

Three ways to register or for more information,
- link here: mailto:tc-legal1@straffordpub.com
- call toll-free 1-800-926-7926, ext. 10
- visit http://www.straffordpub.com/products/kelo

*CLE CREDIT AVAILABLE for an additional $65 per person
in states where teleconferences are accredited
states currently NOT included: DE, KS, IN, OH, PA

Can't participate on July 13? A CD-ROM of the full conference
proceedings will be available three weeks after the program.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONVENIENT, COST-EFFECTIVE FORMAT

Teleconferences offer an excellent opportunity to brief your staff with no lost travel time or
expenses. Your entire legal team can participate from your office for one low fee
(additional charge for CLE). And no special equipment is required to participate in the
live interactive program -- all you need is a standard telephone.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Litigation Reporter
Strafford Publications, Inc.
590 Dutch Valley Road, NE - Postal Drawer 13729
Atlanta, GA 30324-0729 USA
Phone (800) 926-7926 x.10
Fax (404) 881-0074
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you would prefer not to receive further messages from Strafford Publications please

Click here to unsubscribe



590 Dutch Valley Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30324

I could not agree with you more. Which is why I am mystified that you are such a Bush fan. The US Government has never been bigger and has never grabbed more power in the history of this nation. How you can rationalize this as leftward creep baffles me, but then conservatives these days are like stock brokers--they can rationalize anything.

Who said I was a Bush fan? I'll agree he's hands down better than Kerry or Gore would have been, but that's about it. As far as government size is concerned, it's horrible, but the Democrats would have been far worse. I've also defended him concerning those "moron" attacks, because I (along with Ed and others) don't think he's stupid at all. We all are stuck with one of two choices, ultimately, and you have to pick sides and support your guy, taking the good with the bad. Until there is a credible and viable Libertarian candidate, what else can we do?

I think we see here the occasional alignment of interests of capitalists pigs/developers (as your side would characterize them) and leftist/statist legislators (from now on, I'll stick with "statist" instead of "socialist," to avoid your wrath about any socialist/fascist/communist/liberal distinctions). The statists want to grant the government more power, the capitalists here benefit from that power. Everyone's happy, right?

No, the libertarian/strict[er] constructionists and all the "little people" are not, at least in principle.

What happens next? Hell, the Supreme Court is the end of the line on this one. There will never be an amendment around this decision. We're stuck with it. Now every single damn locality is free to condemn away, assuming they implement some type of master plan development, not just one-off projects, and have the money to pay for it (which, I assume, they would always get from the developer wanting to do the project). That little old lady holding out on the last parcel of a big block will no longer be an issue. Almost anything could qualify as "public use" now. It's now purely a legislative decision, assuming due process is followed and fair compensation paid -- mere formalities.

I'd bet that local bodies will usually jump at the chance to see developments come in and replace low tax base dilapidated residential properties. Only a relatively few will complain, those displaced or immediately adjacent to the projects, and the legislators can spew forth all sorts of supporting statistics about how much additional tax revenue they will have and how many more jobs will be created. In the bigger picture, they look great.

More left creep. It's unfortunately inevitable, I tell you. Once a government gets so big and powerful, it's incrementally easier to grab more and more power. Every decision like this that expands that power a bit at a time becomes the new precedent and springboard for the next power grab. The slippery slope is real. You should be proud!
Sorry to be late to the party.

Ahem. This decision is utterly un-Left, and I would argue that the 'statist' tag applies pretty equally to Repubs and Dems in this day and age. Even principled Libertarians say as much, and I have to agree. The difference is, who is served by the statist impulse? The Repubs are statist for the interest of the capitalist/ruling class, and that is who is served here. Period. I can't speak for any of the justices and why they voted the way they did, but if any proof is needed that there are no true Leftists on this court, here we have it.

Bad decision.

Well, I'd guess that most liberals would like to think their ideology is all about helping the little guy, but I think there is something different occuring in the ultimate implementation, though. Ultimately, how the little guy is protected is through more and more government regulation and control. Maybe this, too, is an example of "unintended consequences," the consequence of years of precedent of allowing government more control. It's sort of an "oops, we didn't mean for that to happen," though it's consistent with the trends established by the more liberal judges and legislators. This is an example of the reasoning behing my type of ideology of more limited government, no matter what the perceived benefit is at the time. The way things work, you can't approve more government control 99% of the time, then object when you get something like this, which is legally consistent with the other 99% of the decisions. A combination of slippery slope and precedent.

I understand that liberals may not like this decision, but even if unintended, they (in a global sense, not just you guys here) helped to create it.

I think you hit it on the head. The claimed desire is to "help the little guy", but the result is to give more and more power to government to decide what is "fair" and "just".

Sorry to be late to the party.

Ahem. This decision is utterly un-Left, and I would argue that the 'statist' tag applies pretty equally to Repubs and Dems in this day and age. Even principled Libertarians say as much, and I have to agree. The difference is, who is served by the statist impulse? The Repubs are statist for the interest of the capitalist/ruling class, and that is who is served here. Period. I can't speak for any of the justices and why they voted the way they did, but if any proof is needed that there are no true Leftists on this court, here we have it.

Bad decision.

Any chance this will affect the dispute with your neighbors?

Con Law professors will love this decision (from a teaching perspective) because it allows them to play with their students' emotions. Why on earth would the Justices who generally are affiliated with the "liberals" render a decision in favor of monied land developers? But the real issue is not whether corporations can buy off elected officials and steal land from old ladies. Instead, the real issue is the strength and scope of the takings clause. Although I find the decision itself a little surprising, the split is exactly what I would expect.

Generally speaking, the Justices behind the majority opinion have viewed the takings clause as a relatively minor limitation on government power. Not too long ago (and also during the early 20th century), the hot issue was what constituted a taking, with the "conservatives" up in arms about environmental, zoning and other legislation that arguably deprived land owners of their right to fully exploit the economic value of their land (i.e., a "regulatory taking"). The land owners wanted compensation, but the Court held that a taking occurred only when the regulations at issue deprived the land of substantially all economic value. Afterward, the "liberals" praised the Court's decision in large part because it eliminated a potentially huge financial obstacle to environmental regulations, and the "conservatives" condemned the Court's decision because it significantly limited the justifiable economic expectations of land owners. Ultimately, the decision endorsed the view that the takings clause should be interpreted in a manner that allows for broad government action, in contrast to other provisions that severely limit government action (such as the fourth amendment, due process clause, establishment clause, etc.)

Subsequent to these regulatory takings cases in the 80s or 90s (I can't remember exactly when), Scalia and his group managed to strengthen the takings clause in a couple of decisions and there was some speculation that the "conservative" viewpoint would win out. In each case the battle was usually between the government and a wealthy land owner or developer, which I suspect is the reason for the labeling which is now surprising a few folks. In other words, the "conservative" or "liberal" label was attached to the decision based on who was fighting the government.

Coming back to the most recent opinion, there is a natural knee-jerk inclination to label it as conservative because the little guy lost. But then you see the names who sided against the little guy, and that's what confuses people. This is makes much more sense if you step back and assess the legal principle behind the majority opinion. Bottom line, the majority opinion generally strikes me as a defensible extension of the logic underlying the earlier more "liberal" takings decisions. It just happens that this time, the little guy loses.

Now, would people be so upset if the government were to condemn a nondescript strip mall and facilitate a transfer to a private developer of residential housing who promised to include low-income units? Come to think of it, I may have just figured out how to empower city councils to eliminate those pesky "adult" shops they have been trying to zone away.

The best take I've seen on this subject. The "most liberal" paper in the country, the NY Times, praising the decision:

Copyright 2005 New York Times

June 24, 2005

The Limits of Property Rights

The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.

The city of New London has fallen on hard times. In 1998 - when its population was at its lowest since 1920, and its unemployment rate was nearly twice the state average - an effort was begun to turn New London around. State and local officials put together a redevelopment plan, anchored by a $300 million Pfizer research facility, that would bring restaurants, stores and a new Coast Guard museum to one hard-hit neighborhood.

The city authorized a nonprofit development corporation to clear the necessary land by eminent domain, a forced sale in which the seller is given appropriate compensation. The development corporation got control of most of the land it needed, but a few people refused to sell.

Eminent domain allows governments to take property for a public use, such as building a road. The property owners in New London claimed that handing over private property to a private developer cannot be a public use, even if it is part of a comprehensive plan to turn around a depressed city.

The Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, sided with the city. The court noted that in past cases it had taken a broad view on this issue, and given governments wide discretion to determine when a taking of property meets this standard. New London, the court held, was within its rights to decide that its development plan was a valid public use. (The New York Times benefited from eminent domain in clearing the land for the new building it is constructing opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal.)

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor lamented that the decision meant that the government could transfer any private property from the owner to another person with more political influence "so long as it might be upgraded." That is a serious concern, but her fears are exaggerated. The majority strongly suggested that eminent domain should be part of a comprehensive plan, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, underscored that its goal cannot simply be to help a developer or other private party become richer.

That is not the situation in New London. Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

Any chance this will affect the dispute with your neighbors?
None. The developer has long owned the property in question. While my opposition is obviously personal, my LEGAL position is based on the admitted destruction his development (which applied for and got many, many variances) will wreak on a long-protected scenic corridor, and the inability of the community to deliver services and provide infractructure for his development, which will just land out here in the middle of nowhere (by various estimates 700-1000 upscale houses) like an asteroid in the wilderness. BAM. Meet your 5000 new neighbors, and where's the schools and fire trucks?