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.