Court: Cities May Seize Homes For Economic Development
 

Court: Cities May Seize Homes For Economic Development

POSTED: 11:56 am EDT June 23, 2005
UPDATED: 12:38 pm EDT June 23, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The 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 decision has huge implications across the country, where rapidly growing areas face competing pressures of development versus property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling is a defeat for some Connecticut residents, whose homes are set to be destroyed to make room for an office complex.

the full article

<shaking head sadly> This is nuts!

Dee

Re: Court: Cities May Seize Homes For Economic Development
 

This is more than nuts... :(

It is definitely a blank check for larger corporations etc to run amuck over lower income areas in the name of "economic development".

Could one of the lawyers please explain exactly how a Allodial title works?

Pretty basic example of eminent domain. The cities do have to compensate them for their property, it's not like they're just taking it.

... at "fair market value", something often dictated to the home owner rather than by the open market, as it was originally intended (iirc obviously).

This sort of thing has happened for generations with regard to infrastructure improvements and city planning.

Up here in Toronto if the city is goinging to seize land/homes for development they usually give the open market value of the property - as of a year or two prior to annoucing their intention of expropiating the property.... or 80% of the current market value... interestingly enough which ever seems to be the greater value.

Toronto might be doing just that in my neighbourhood, to install a rapid transit rail link to the airport - so I'm getting to see all the steps involved in the city seizing land for development purposes.

<shakes head>

I could go on a rant about this subject...it has way too broad definition of "economic growth"

This ruling is amazing to me. At a 5-4 decision, it was definitely a split in the court too.

With the average american's majority of their wealth tied up in the real property they own, this decision allows government to take one person's wealth *against their wishes* to benefit another. Think of it as being akin to robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

Yes you can get fair market value for your property, but you may have to pay capital gains tax on that income from the forced sale of your real property. This doesn't even take into account the emotional and physical stress of the logistics of simply have to relocate your world. In the instances of property that has been in the family ownership for generations, you also lose that connection to your family and community heritage.

This ruling was just plain wrong.

Emenit Domain is used very Little/Sometimes often to take Title to Land and that is to be used for the Betterment of the Total Good.

But
Many or Most (? )Times people are given more than the actual worth of the property +.:)

There have been things that Need to be done for the Mulitudes for the few that complain every day about everything.:(

disagree.

I worked for a real estate appraisal firms doing some appraisals for property to be aquired under eminent domain.

Absolutely disagree....most times the property owners are given the shaft in the valuation.

One church here in Des Moines was aquired for the airport expansion...finally won in court for the true value of the property...approximately $3 million more than the city wanted to give them.

I have little disagreement with the eminent domain being used for PUBLIC good...ie, highways, public buildings etc. BUT NOT TO BE GIVEN TO ANOTHER PRIVATE ENTITY for the PROFIT OF THE ENTITY.

That is simply the bone they throw. Never have I seen a family appropriately compensated for their loss. This has been occurring in East Baltimore as the Johns Hopkins complex sucks up every piece of land around it. I know several communities where families who have owned their home for generations have been stripped of their property, paid considerably less that what it really was worth and forced to move. Sadly most of the folks have been retired working class folks on fixed incomes who really cannot afford to buy new in this current housing market. The companies would rather get the city to help them boot these folks than have to buy them out for a more true price.

Baltimore has a very sad history of this. In West Baltimore we have the infamous "highway to nowhere" which should have connected rt 70 to downtown. The city took blocks and blocks of homes from low income people of color but eventually abandoned the project because they would have had to disturb a park. That was far more of a concern that the hundreds of people they displaced. Oh no, not the trees and the birds, can't move them.

Eminent domain sounds reasonable on paper or in a case book but is a really ugly thing in reality.

This is already happening in Georgia. My family has been tied up multiple times in court over our property.

Walmart has perfected the art of getting the gov't to steal land.

Completely agree with you on this!!

I saw this on the news yesterday and it just shocked me. This will have big ramifications in future cases.

I agree that private development can be good for a community, but I do not think that it falls in the category of for "public good" or "public use", its a private entity. Some states already have it defined where they can aquire land for the elimination of blight through redevlopment. I think this can be viewed in many ways though. If its not making as much money for the government as they would like, is that considered blight?

I feel like this is just "expanding gentrification". Displacing residents of less ideal areas by siezing their homes for what is deemed better use by the government is just sad.

A little closer to socialism...
 

Frankly, I blame public domain on the rapid decline of many cities I know - Pittsburgh being one of them.

Consider that you have inherited a building & business. When you own your own business, there are many times that you work 24/7 - and still have to pay someone else to do the necessary maintainance etc. Your whole livlihood has been poured into this building & business. But wait! The local government has decided that your business won't look right next to Lord & Taylor's, or the new Cheesecake Factory! They declare public domain, and you are forced to accept roughly half of the building's worth, and next to nothing of what the business is worth. A family business that has florished for as many as ten generations is wiped out on the whim of an inept mayor and/or council. You are forced into the working poor because you're not old enough to retire, and not young enough to get the type of job that you deserve.

If anyone thinks that public domain is so wonderful, just drive down Fifth Avenue in Pittsburgh after 6pm. It makes the case for me!

You know what's funny to me about it all? The U.S. was FOUNDED on land ownership. That's one of the things about which we disagreed with the Native Americans.

This is unbelievably bad for our future. It's incredible to me that we started out as a Republic that protected our rights. These days, everyone believes that we are a Democracy and that our rights should be protected unless they are a detriment to the common good. But, what are we becoming now? Socialist?

Between this and the flag thing, moving somewhere tropical is starting to sound good.

I was JUST talking to my dad about the state of this country. We still believe it is better (and more luxurious) to remain here, but I would transfer my citizenship to Switzerland if it came down to that. No joke.

In 1999 New Rochelle, NY tried to seize private property under eminent domain by condemning 15 acres of land where about 200 people lived in order to build an Ikea. Luckily, for the residents that didn't happen because Ikea backed out after negative news coverage.

The same thing happened in Times Square recently in order to seize private property to build a new headquarters for the NY Times. The old building was knocked down and new construction is going on right now. Times Square is not a blighted community anymore.

Link to the 60 Minutes story about eminent domain. It includes the story about the new NY Times HQ.

I never said that I agreed with eminent domain or thought that it was always a good thing. I pointed out that people do get some compensation because the way it was posted it made it seem like the gov't was just taking it off of them.

The problem with eminent domain is that "public good" or "public use" is VERY liberally interpreted by the courts, so these things get taken care of.

And honeychile, i'd rather they took most of the 5th-Forbes corridor by eminent domain and knocked it all down. Hell, even if it was just ending up grass. That place is a mess. More than half the storefronts are vacant, and business that are there aren't long time family owned businesses, they're pager and fake-bling selling stores.
I do miss the old downtown of my childhood.

Well, as long as I get to keep the 2nd Amendment, this does not bother me.

Come to my house and try to take my title so you can build a Starbucks, you will have to get by my Remington first.

;)

These SC Justices need to go back to 5th grade and read some Orwell.

Haha, and that takes us back to the point (this was talked about in another thread recently) that you can't use deadly force to defend your property unless you or your family are in danger of physical harm ;) so don't be too quick with that trigger!

I agree with your statement, especially about mowing down the Fifth-Forbes corridor - what a MESS that's become!! I'm sooo glad that I don't work in town anymore.

One of the buildings my mother owns has been under the threat of eniment domain for a few years now by Port Authority. The prices bandied about are a joke! She laughed at the last offer, telling them that they would have to put three zeros on the end just to break even, let alone take care of the tenants etc. They haven't come back with any new numbers. :)

What gets me mad is the matter of who decides the public good? Because we've learned here that the politicians certainly don't!

As far as the Fifth-Forbes issue, if they would have spent the money they wasted on Lazarus and L & T and given it to the businesses to fix their storefronts etc, this wouldn't be an issue. If you're under the threat of Mayor Asshole whoops I mean Murphy stealing your business, you certainly aren't going to do anything to fix it and then have it taken from you.

That whole debacle was a racial thing, plain and simple. If Murphy wasn't such a @$%#ing racist we wouldn't have a downtown full of empty storefronts. Apparently he believes it's better to have no patrons than black patrons.

While I was not happy with The Major Court of the Land giving an Opinion of this Nature no matter How Close it was, I can only relate to an Area in My Vacinity.

Just West of Me, the Properity was worth Taxes of $224,000 a Year.

Now, there is The Kansas Speedway, Cabelas, Nebraska Furniture Mart, a Lot Of Resturants and New Businesses coming in to a depressed City that was losing Population.

$$$ coming into The Market.

More Population with Roof Tops and a growing Population.:)

While I do not Beleve in Carte Blanc for doing this, there does have to be a line drawn.

I was also thinking the same way When the USA Supreme Court cam upon this vote.

So, once again the Small People may get screwed.

If there is a very fair Market Value with a + given then Okay, but, just to say, Hey, This is going to do good. Well, let me see it first!:mad:

While the SC decision allows this to happen, can't it still be forbidden by state law?

For me, this decision will probably be very nice since my dad's firm does so much work in condemnation. In Oklahoma, we have some laws on the books that go a long way towards protecting the land owner when the city, state or county takes their land through eminent domain. If an attorney is able to secure them 10% more than the "FMV" offered by the condemning entity, the condemning entity has to pay attorney's fees. What y'all have been saying about the FMV that is offered is generally correct though. I've never seen a case where we didn't get at least 10% higher than what was the property was originally appraised to be worth.

There are also loopholes that have been being used for quite some time in these parts when it came to the taking of property through eminent domain to build something like a Wal-Mart. In those cases, the city would simply condemn the land, then lease it for some low price to whatever business they wanted to have there. For example, Oklahoma City obtained a large piece of property for Bass Pro Shops in our riverwalk area, even built their building, and now leases it to them for something like $75,000/year.

In the long run though, don't expect to see much land grabbing or anything like that. In fact, due to the public finally having the awareness that this is going on, perhaps we'll start to see legislation appear that will give landowners more protections.

ktsnake, that is what is so interesting.

The Federal Govt. Will not usurp Local Laws. But, it seems to be happening more and more.

States rights are becoming about as ridiged as Individual rights.:( Right!

KC Metro area is doing a lot of this and hopefully for the Total Betterment.

Now, I agree with Ememinet Domaine, "If and Only If" it is done for a Total betterment such as was done in KC Ks.

The People were offered 125 % of appraised cost. If did not agree, they could get a appraisal and then went from there. They also had the right to move their Homes or take anything that they wanted. They also had help if wanted to move houses.

It has turned the Area totally around and is benefiting the County and City. Oh for some that dont know, We had Unification of both sevearal years back.

KC Metro also has a Big Problem about moving a person out for a Shopping center and is not on their land! They just want it!:mad:

Wal_Fart, Hell, they want what they want, but is becoming harder for them to be so strong.:)

Metro Area had killings and shabby Housing and sleeze Bars, not is a Finally working shopping center of Mid Town.

If, and I emphasize If, it is used right, it can be for a larger Bettement.

There will always be some unhappy people. It has to be used with some restraint. But, once it is a Law Now, I am sure it will be abused!:(

I think this is WAY scary.

It's really sad to be pretty honest... especially for families that have been there all their lives.

In north texas, there are many homeowners who are definitely upset about this because their homes happen to be where the city wants to build the new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys (personally I think if they are the "Dallas" Cowboys they should be in Dallas not Arlington, but that's another conversation for another day..)

I would be seriously pissed if some city person told me I had to move because they wanted to make a mall or stadium....no amount of money would make me want to move out of a house that I grew up in and have so many memories at.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard about.
Eminet domain is not when a big company can talk the city into buying property for the sake of larger property taxes when they turn around and sell it to the company. It is one thing to take land for roads/city buildings and the betterment of the community and it is another when wal-mart wants your house and the city forces you to sell it.
Private property is private property. These judges need some new blood to see reality when CVS or Walgreens wants to take their house.
Not to mention there goes the real estate business, no more bidding wars it will be who gets to the city council first wins.

The case as I understand it just says that states, cities, counties, whatever can create laws to take land from private citizens for a more 'public' use. It would stand to reason that they could also create laws forbidding the practice.

What I'm saying Tom is that most communities already take land by eminent domain on a routine basis. My community actually takes land this way and then leases it to businesses at bargain basement prices -- they tell the public that this is good for everyone because of lower prices and increased tax revenue. In the case of Oklahoma City, I'd say that the Bass Pro Shops was a pretty decent deal that spurred some major growth in our "Bricktown" entertainment district.

I agree with I think Justice O'Connor in her assessment that the law puts the wealthy corporations at a major advantage over private landowners.

My hope is that this decision spurns public support and therefore legislative support for more laws protecting private property rights. In some communities, we actually may end up closing some of the loopholes that have been in use for quite awhile.

As for the Dallas example, unless Texas law says otherwise, it would have been legal before the decision because the stadium would probably have been owned by the city and leased to the Cowboys -- that is the deal that y'all have with Jones, isn't it?

Absolutely. Now that the city has "last person leaving, please turn out the lights" written all over it, it will be interesting to see what happens. And no way is Onarato doing himself any favors by trying to get the rest of the county to bail out the city's bankruptcy. Washington County, here I come!

If this is true, the irony . . .

Link to the Source

^^^^^^^ Ah, sweet sweet irony^^^^^^^

States Move to Protect Property

By Emily Bazar, USA TODAY
Wed Aug 3, 7:17 AM ET

States across the country are rushing to pass laws to counter the potential impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that allows state and local governments to seize homes for private development. (Related story: Ruling may doom homes)

In Alabama Wednesday, Gov. Bob Riley will sign a law that prohibits the state, cities and counties from taking private property for retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential development. "We don't like anybody messing with our dogs, our guns, our hunting rights or trying to take property from us," says state Sen. Jack Biddle, a sponsor of the law.

Delaware also has changed its law since the high court ruling on eminent domain. Legislatures in at least eight other states are weighing proposals this year. More may be coming. And Congress is considering action.

"When legislatures start new sessions in January, I expect the majority of states to take up bills that would restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes," said Larry Morandi, environmental program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The issue has spawned an unusual alliance among conservatives opposed to the principle of government seizing private property and liberals worried that poor people would be the most likely victims.

The actions are a swift response to a Supreme Court decision in a Connecticut case. For the first time, it ruled that condemnation of private property solely for economic development was constitutional.

In that case, the justices accepted New London, Conn., officials' plan to raze homes to make way for a hotel, office complexes and a marina.

But the court left the door open for states to limit the use of eminent domain for economic development.

um....

wasn't having a gauranteed place to live free that no one could take away from you the entire purpose of creating this country in the first place??


we've fallen.

Actually, it was a tax evasion scheme.