[Just as the anti's confuse private with public property, the court confuses public use with private use ... a horrible judgement, your home or business can be lost if some local yokel decides your property can generate more tax revenue by giving it to someone else.]


"High court OKs personal property seizures"

"Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities"

Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)

"It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They 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 have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices 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," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

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, Connecticut, 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.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

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

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

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."

CNN

This could be one of the most disasterous decisions ever by an activist Court. They have painted a bullseye on every private property owner and given carte blanche to every local government to take what they wish. The local TV stations in DC are already talking about how it paves the way for a new baseball stadium by taking the property of people who happen to live in the way. I can also see it threatening the private-property rights argument against smoking bans, because the Court's ruling basically gives the government, not the owner, the right to decide how a property is to be used.

This isn't anything new where I live. It was either when our smoking ban was passed or when one city councilman tried to get it rescinded a year later (he failed) that the same city council put a street through a woman's property against her vehement objections.

Two localbusinesses were relocating and thought another road leading to them would be beneficial to them. From the two times I've gone out there to look there is almost nobody uses it. Prior to this they would've just had to drive a little further.

The woman put a huge sign up on the part of her property that's been cut off from her, condemning the city for what they did to her.

Nothing new here. Still pisses me off too.

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women, and when it dies, no constitution can save it."

-Judge Learned Hand

[Kind of why, it's important to select judges that value liberty, and not just pay lip service to it.]

quote:

"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,"

the key words here are city and benefits...i.e. those in power know what is best and therefore can transfer property as they see fit - exactly the same principle used to push through smoking bans and will be used for every other measure in the name of the public good - property rights be damned. Somewhere Stalin and Mao are smiling - is this even America anymore?

Yes, this decision by the Supremes is alarming, but i'm afraid it's not really precedent-setting since the precedent has already been set. Its main danger is that the decision puts the Supremes' imprimater on government taking of private property for any reason at all. It won't be long until in the name of "health" some government wil close some business just for the "good of the children" and nobody will be able to do anything about it.

Payback Time!!!

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

YeeHaawww

I saw that story, too, and what wonderful revenge it would be. I hope 3 of the City Council members decide they need the tax revenue...

Souter, along with the two Clinton appointees, consistently votes in favor of any case that gives governments more power, indeed it would serve him right.

The man who is proposing to take Souter's land was on Hannity and Colmes (Fox News channel) tonight. He's serious about it and said he's being swamped with money offers. He's hoping to find a hotel chain willing to join in. When asked about the other four Justices who helped demolish private property rights, he grinned and said there are hotel chains who can build anywhere.

the founding fathers are likely rolling in their graves.

UPDATE

CONCORD, N.H. Jan 21, 2006 — Angered by a Supreme Court ruling that gave local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development, a group of activists is trying to get one of the court's justices evicted from his own home.

The group, led by a California man, wants Justice David Souter's home seized to build an inn called the "Lost Liberty Hotel."

They submitted enough petition signatures only 25 were needed to bring the matter before voters in March. This weekend, they're descending on Souter's hometown, the central New Hampshire town of Weare, population 8,500, to rally for support.

link

Alas the move didn't work..........

N.H. Town Rejects Plan to Evict Souter

WEARE, N.H. - Residents on Saturday rejected a proposal to evict U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost Liberty Hotel."


A group angered by last year's court decision that gave local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development had petitioned to use the ruling against the justice.


But voters deciding which issues should go on the town's March ballot replaced the group's proposal with a call to strengthen New Hampshire's law on eminent domain.


"This is a game," said Walter Bohlin. "Why would we take something from one of ours? This is not the appropriate way."


Souter, who grew up in Weare, a central New Hampshire town of 8,500, has not commented on the matter and was not at the meeting.


Joshua Solomon, a member of the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights, was disappointed with the vote.


"We lost today, not because there isn't support in this town but because the turnout wasn't here," he said. "It's not exactly the message we intended to have."

Solomon had said the group was formed because the Supreme Court has given courts and legislatures "permission to chip away at our freedoms."

The Supreme Court ruling allowed New London, Conn., to take several waterfront homes for a private development. The city argued that the project would benefit the public by generating tax revenue and new jobs.

The Legislature is considering several proposals to limit government's ability to use eminent domain.

Ideally the committee won. They got one locality to pass legislation to limit eminent domain in their community.

After all, if the hotel had been established they could have just as easily passed a smoking ban covering it. Even now the story has been lost on the press, yesterday's news.

I agree that they ultimately won, and as more and more legislative bodies around the ocuntry tighten up the eminent domain laws and ordinance many more communites will win.

Now if we cuold just figure out a means to use the "without just compensation" part to overturn smoking bans which have taken mony out of the registers of so many businesses nationwide.

I believe smoking bans are a ploy by the drug companies to sell not patches and gum but ADD and ADHD drugs. In a memo I read last year a drug company executive said that if they could get adults from self medicating with tobacco their share of the ADD/ADHD market had the potential of going from two billion a year to ten billion. Although these drugs have not been improved since the 50's their costs have esculated each year since 2000.

An adult will spend on average $ 5,000 for tests and doctor visits to be diagnosed and from $ 5.00 to $ 10.00 a day for medication for the rest of their lives. Therefore tax increases have not kept up with the esculating cost of medications.

I smoke in lieu of those costs.

Bruce

If the adult in question lived in NYC they might have Bloomies health police watching to be sure they went to the MD and took their meds.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48596

He's got priorities!

I believe that we each have the right to reject medical advice and councel. Many prefer food and lodging rather than a doctor's advice. I am one of those. With the internet and libraries I can decide when and if I need a medical practicioner. I also decide how to spend my disposable income. I feel I have made an educated choice to treat my condition with cigarettes. I pay the bill, not the government.

Regardless, I thought medical records were private. How does the government know who needs medication and who does not? If they do know, they shouldn't.

The story about NYC obtaining private citizens medical records without informing them much less obtaining their consent was published in last Sunday's NYT. I linked to another source as the NYT requires registration to view content.

My biggist question is, if Bloomie's health police can access diabetic records because "there's an epidemic" what other records are they, could they, will they access? What are the limits? It would appear there are none.

Will folks be reported for being over weight? Psychiatric problems? Pregnancy? Substance abuse treatment? What about members of religions that do not support some 'conventional' medical procedure or other?

IMHO privacy matters. That said I am far less worried about anyone listening in on any phone conversations I might have with Imams elsewhere (for purposes of defending my city and my country) than I am about having these health police assume they have the right to track my medical information.