Property Seizures:
Eminent domain,
by any other name ... still stinks. Imagine you come home from work one day to a notice on your
front door that you have 45 days to demolish your house, or the city will do it for you. Oh, and
you're paying for it. This is happening right now in Montgomery, Ala., and here is how it works:
The city decides it doesn't like your property for one reason or another, so it declares it a "public
nuisance."
How Liberals Want to Control Your Life.
[Scroll down] One of the more frightening aspects of the new administration's liberal impulses is the ability
to take one's personal property. [Terence P.] Jeffrey recalls the case of neighbors in Fort Trumbull,
Conn., who had their homes condemned because they didn't bring in enough tax revenue. That move was a
vivid contrast to what the Founders envisioned. "They believed redistributing property was beyond the
legitimate scope of any government," Jeffrey writes.
Confiscating
your property: Zaher El-Ali has repaired and sold cars in Houston for 30 years. One
day, he sold a truck to a man on credit. Ali was holding the title to the car until he was paid, but
before he got his money the buyer was arrested for drunken driving. The cops then seized Ali's truck and
kept it, planning to sell it. Ali can't believe it. "I own that truck. That truck done
nothing."
Good Riddance!
Justice Stevens voted to sustain racial quotas, created "rights" out of thin air for terrorists, and took away
American citizens' rights to their own homes in the infamous "Kelo" decision of 2005. ... Justice John Paul
Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution's authorization of seizing private
property for "public use" to seizing private property for a "public purpose."
Justice
Stevens was no champion of the little guy. President Obama said his nominee to replace John Paul
Stevens on the Supreme Court would "be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in a democracy, powerful
interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens." Tell that to the "ordinary
citizens" of New London, Conn., whose homes were stolen by the government for use by real estate developers at
the request of the largest drug company in America — with the approval of Justice Stevens.
Hotel
Conference Center May Trump Private Property in Eminent Domain Case. In Auburn, New York, the city
is threatening to invoke eminent domain to seize private property for a private hotel conference center, saying
the public good outweighs the private property rights of some citizens.
Big Blighters. After Kelo v. City
of New London, the 2005 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court approved the forcible transfer of property
from one private owner to another in the name of "economic development," 43 states passed reforms that
were supposed to curb eminent domain abuses. But most states still allow condemnation of property
deemed to be "blighted," and many of them define that condition so broadly that it has become a synonym for
coveted, as illustrated by two recent New York cases.
Court
Rules Private Land Can Be Seized for NBA Arena. New York's highest court ruled Tuesday [11/24/2009]
that it's lawful for a state economic development agency to seize private land to build an arena for a professional
basketball team. The 6-1 ruling by the New York State Court of Appeals allows the contentious $4.9 billion,
22-acre Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, N.Y., to proceed. The proposed development includes office
towers, apartments and a new arena for the NBA's New Jersey Nets.
Property Owners Get Dunked
On. New York judges served up what basketball fans call a facial on Tuesday [11/24/2009], when an
appellate court ruled that the state may seize homes and small businesses in Brooklyn for the benefit of a private
developer and the New Jersey Nets. The decision represents a backward step for the effort to protect property
rights at the state level since the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London.
More
about taxpayer-funded stadiums and arenas.
Federal prosecutors scoop up millions for victims as greedy bad guys
go to jail. The Manhattan U.S. attorney's office collected more than $450 million from
criminal forfeitures between Oct. 1, 2008, and Sept. 30, 2009. When civil proceeds are added,
the total jumps to $570 million — more than 11 times the office's annual budget. What
doesn't get turned over to victims goes to Justice Department coffers.
Legalized larceny posing as
forfeiture. The Supreme Court seems to think that anything is permissible in the name of fighting
crime. On June 24, 1996, United States vs. Ursery, the court ruled that civil punishments in addition
to criminal punishments do not constitute double jeopardy. Asset forfeitures came to prominence in the war
against drugs. They have not dented drug use but they have made thieves out of law enforcement officers.
Hold On to Your Assets. This fall, the
U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Alvarez v. Smith, a challenge to the state of
Illinois' Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (DAFPA). The six petitioners in Alvarez each had
property seized by police who suspected the property had been involved in a drug crime. Three had their
cars seized, three had cash taken. None of the six were served with a warrant, none of the six were
charged with the crime. All perfectly legal, at least until now.
The Forfeiture Racket:
Over the past three decades, it has become routine in the United States for state, local, and federal governments
to seize the property of people who were never even charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. Nearly
every year, according to Justice Department statistics, the federal government sets new records for asset
forfeiture.
Municipal land-grabbing powers should be
curtailed. The Frontier Centre for Public Policy today released a study from policy analyst
Joseph Quesnel which looks at the practice of municipal expropriation for economic development. In his
study, Quesnel argues that this practice must be curbed as it prone to serious abuse.
U.S.
gives Flight 93 site landowners one week to sell. The federal government issued an ultimatum yesterday
[6/5/2009] to people who own land designated for the Flight 93 memorial in Western Pennsylvania: They have
one week to reach an agreement on the sale of their land or the government will initiate proceedings to seize it.
Racing Past the
Constitution: In 2006, supposedly to "address the negative impact that riverboat gaming has had" on
Illinois horse racing, the Legislature — racing interests made huge contributions to Gov. Rod
Blagojevich — mandated a transfer of 3 percent of the gross receipts of the four most
profitable casinos, those in the Chicago area, to the state's horse-racing tracks. This levy,
subsequently extended to run until 2011, will confiscate substantially more than $100 million.
What is to prevent legislators from taking revenues from Wal-Mart and giving them to local retailers? Or from
chain drugstores to local pharmacies? Not the tattered remnant of the Constitution's takings clause.
Mayor
Daley Seizes Land for Unfunded Project. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has kicked hundreds of families
out of their homes and relocated a cemetery full of buried bodies to build a whopping $15 billion airport
expansion Chicago residents oppose, airlines don't want and he doesn't have the money to build. The
kicker is that Daley stands a solid chance of getting a good chunk of the boondoggle funded in Washington's
forthcoming stimulus bill under Barack Obama's pledge to dramatically increase infrastructure spending.
Eminent Domain and the
Eighth Commandment: Our parents taught us from childhood that it is wrong to take from others what doesn't
belong to us. Yet, when we grow up we learn we can get away with it as long as we have the right excuses and
rationalizations. The first step in rationalizing this kind of action is to give it an innocuous label. It
is best to use the Latin expression eminent domain, instead of by the vulgar term "stealing."
Tiny bit of land triggers big fight over city powers.
When finished, the .09-acre patch of land near the Galleria will be the city's smallest park. Too small even for a
basketball court, Post Oak Lane Park might be big enough for a game of horseshoes, a few benches and greenery. Using
its power of eminent domain, the city of Houston seized the land for the park from brothers James and Jock Collins last year.
Dems Target Private Retirement
Accounts. Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate
workers' personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them
to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration. Triggered by the financial crisis the past
two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees
whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.
Move Over New London.
The Texas Legislature did pass a law in 2005 that banned the use of eminent domain for "economic development"
takings. But the law contained an exception for takings designed to eliminate "slum or blighted areas."
The city has done its homework and determined — to no one's surprise — that the entire
area is blighted. Yet the city's own study clearly shows there is vibrant economic activity taking
place within this "blighted" area.
Is There A War Brewing on the
War on Drugs? House Resolution 1658, due to be voted on this week, would require the government
to meet more stringent reporting requirements concerning assets seized in drug busts. Presently, assets may
be seized by the police without a defendant being convicted, upon suspicion of such property being used to
manufacture or distribute illegal narcotics. Between 1985 and 1995, the Departments of Justice and
Treasury seized nearly $4 billion in assets from US citizens, according to government reports.
Raid targets Mongols
motorcycle gang. In an unusual maneuver, the feds are also seeking to seize control of the Mongols'
trademarked name, which is typically accompanied by its cherished insignia — a ponytailed Genghis
Khan-like figure riding a chopper. U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien said if his plan is successful,
the government would take over ownership of the trademark, and anyone caught wearing a Mongols patch could
have it seized by law enforcement on the spot.
That's Not
Blight — It's New Jersey. The usual M.O. for city fathers eyeing some juicy piece of
property is to declare the homes of people living there "blighted." That's just what happened
to Lori [Ann Vendetti] and her neighbors. She says that when Long Branch first started to talk
about a redevelopment plan in the mid-1990s, no one even suspected their homes were being targeted for
teardown. Then they found that their neighborhood was officially declared blighted.
Fear
of eminent domain grips PG neighborhood. Residents of a working-class neighborhood near the
New Carrollton Metro station say Prince George's County is trying to bring the area into a sweeping
redevelopment project that could replace their homes with high-end condos, shopping and restaurants.
This Is Not Your Land Anymore. The
legal phrase "eminent domain" has become all too familiar to nonlawyers in recent years as the U.S. Supreme
Court has gradually expanded the power of municipalities to condemn private property and seize it for "public"
use — even if they just end up handing property over to another private party.
Farmers upset over Perry veto of eminent
domain bill. One Central Texas farmer said Monday he was "dumbfounded" by Gov. Rick Perry's
veto of an eminent domain bill designed to protect landowners when the state wants to take their property.
Robert Fleming is not alone in an area worried about the massive Trans Texas Corridor proposal. The
planned route cuts through Fleming's Bell County farms.
More information about
the Trans Texas Corridor.
Eminent Domain Threatens
Property of Poor and Minorities. It has been two years since the U.S. Supreme Court
issued its landmark property rights decision in Kelo v. City of New London. It remains one
of the most controversial and unpopular decisions in the history of the Court because it basically
stripped away the Fifth Amendment's protection of private property from government abuse of
its power of eminent domain.
Conservatives
on the march for private property. It is remarkable how the 2005 Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in
Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., has riled normally apathetic Americans and motivated them into asserting
people power over the twin powers of government and money. Thirty state legislatures have passed laws or
constitutional amendments to limit the effect of the Kelo ruling and provide protection against abusive
seizures of private property for other private purposes.
Socialism for
the rich: The rich have learned to adapt socialist policies to their own benefit. For
example, the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, is planning to demolish a working class neighborhood under its
power of eminent domain, in order to prepare the way for a marina for yachts, luxury condominiums and an
upscale shopping district.
A
Man's Home is Uncle Sam's Castle. Possession may be nine-tenths of the law, but not when the law
wants your possessions. … This is why principle matters, folks. Not too many complained when the EEOC
sued business after business for alleged discrimination, or when the nanny state foisted mandate after mandate
upon them. But one thing leads to another. Compromise the principle of private property rights and
you've created a slippery slope, one of whose steeper drop-offs is called eminent domain, and at whose
terminus can be found the netherworld of tyranny.
Eminent Domain
Victim of the Month: Imagine you sign a two-year lease with your landlord. After the first
year, you decide you're tired of paying rent and would like to buy the property instead. You make him an
offer, which he rejects as too low. In response, you go to the board of aldermen and ask them to declare
the apartment blighted, condemn it, and turn it over to you for redevelopment. It might sound absurd,
but something very similar is happening right now in Saint Louis.
New South Dakota Measure Favors Railroads Over Private
Property Rights. Railroads operating in South Dakota will have an easier time seizing private
property under state Senate Bill 174, which became law July 1. Proponents say the law will improve
the state's bulk commodity transportation system, but opponents say it threatens property rights.
How Californians
are being escheated. Escheat is a feudal concept that arose from the despotism of the Dark Ages.
It stemmed from the principle that property rights depend upon the sufferance of the sovereign, and when a person
dies or disappears without heirs, his property reverts to the feudal lord. California revived this medieval
doctrine in 1959 and began seizing personal assets on the smarmy pretext that after a few years of account or
safe-deposit box inactivity, property is obviously "lost," and the state needs to "protect" it by selling it off
and depositing the proceeds into the general fund. Today in California, no one's property is safe.
Landowner
Asks Supreme Court to Hear Eminent Domain 'Extortion' Case. Claiming he is the victim of legalized
extortion carried out under eminent domain powers, a landowner in New York is asking the Supreme Court to hear
his case. Landowner Bart Didden claims in a petition that a developer convinced the village of Port Chester,
N.Y., to seize his land through eminent domain after Didden had refused to pay the developer $800,000.
Susette Kelo Lost Her Rights, But She
Will Keep Her Home. Susette Kelo's little pink cottage — the home that was the subject
of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case and a national symbol of the fight against eminent domain
abuse — will be spared from the wrecking ball.
The Last Two Kelo Holdouts
Fold. Susette Kelo and Pasquale Cristofaro, plaintiffs in the infamously historic U.S. Supreme
Court decision of last year have reached an agreement with the Stalinists in New London, Connecticut
who chose to sieze their property to give it to another private party that will generate more
tax revenue for them.
Property Rights on State Ballots.
The [Supreme] Court's narrow majority gave a green light for politicians to take property through eminent domain
for pretty much whatever reason they liked. … If anything positive came from this atrocious, activist
decision, it was to spark a national backlash in favor of property rights.
Kelo's Backlash: Imminent
Success? The Kelo backlash isn't just alive — it's thriving and producing results that
can only be described as historic. … As of July 3rd, the number of states that have passed reforms
has grown to 25 — out of 45 states that had legislative sessions this year. And, it is
possible that, in the next month, that number could grow to as high as 29. … In all the states that
have passed reforms, the situation has improved — often dramatically.
Executive Order: Protecting
the Property Rights of the American People. It is the policy of the United States to protect the
rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the
Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the
purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest
of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.
The pirates of eminent domain:
If state and local governments can force a property owner to surrender his land so it can be given to a new
owner who will put it to more lucrative use, no home or shop in America will ever be safe again.
New American Tea
Party: Kelo backlash could lead to restoration of property rights lost to smart
growth and eminent domain abuses.
The Right to Private Property
is a Civil Right. Property owners are reeling from recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court
in which the Court relegated the right to own property to second-class status. However, the Court's
actions are inconsistent with our Constitution and denigrate the role private ownership of property plays
in our system of government.
The Tyranny of Eminent
Domain: You do not own your property. That is the meaning of the Supreme Court's
June 23 [2006] ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, which held that local governments may
use the power of eminent domain to transfer private property from one private owner to another in pursuit
of "the public interest."
A year after
Kelo. While eminent domain makes sense when it is used to clear the way for such things as
railroads or utilities, it's hard to see how the "public use" requirement embodied in the Fifth Amendment
is satisfied when, as former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted in her dissent, the government is
simply replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton.
Kelo Outrage Fuels a Surging Property
Rights Movement. The Kelo decision was actually one of the best things that ever happened to the
national property rights movement, as it clearly imprinted the precarious nature of private property rights in
the public consciousness and has inspired significant reforms nationwide.
Facing Down The Bulldozers.
It is true, notes Steven Eagle, a law professor at George Mason University, that the Fifth Amendment gives
little guidance on how to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate uses of eminent domain. But that's
because whatever other abuses King George had perpetrated, he did not go around throwing people out of their
homes to build mansions for the wealthy. Deployment of eminent domain powers for economic redevelopment
projects — as New London is doing — was simply not something that the founders anticipated.
Master of Your Domain: The Impact
of the Kelo Decision. Several states — including Alabama, Delaware, Ohio,
and Texas — have succeeded in passing eminent domain reforms, but most of these do not
have any real teeth. According to Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation,
laws like those in Alabama and Texas leave open the door to eminent domain abuse by still
allowing governments to take land they deem "blighted."
Eminent Domain, Private Property, and
Redevelopment: Eminent domain is the power governments have to confiscate,
or take, private property as long as it is for a legitimate "public use" and property owners
receive "just compensation." Whereas eminent domain was initially intended to ensure
that public services, such as roads and highways, were available to the public, local and
state governments often use eminent domain for any project that is considered economically
beneficial. Public use, as a practical matter, has morphed into a more ambiguous "public
benefit." An estimated 10,000 cases between 1998 and 2002 involved projects where private
parties benefit substantially from government seizures of property under the banner of economic
development or urban redevelopment. [PDF]
Court rules local governments can seize
homes. In a blow to U.S. farmers, a divided Supreme Court ruled today [6/23/2005] that local
governments may seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development projects. The court
ruled 5-4 that boosting economic growth outweighed a homeowner's property rights. The case involved a
homeowner who refused to sell her property to the city of New London, Conn. The city wanted the property
so a private developer could build a hotel, shopping and housing complex.
Property Rights Protection Get Bogged
Down. Despite the widespread concern that swept the country following the Kelo decision,
state and federal elected officials have done little to strengthen the protection of property rights.
With the exceptions of the House bill and new laws in Alabama and Texas, property rights initiatives in other
states and in the U.S. Senate have been bogged down in legislative committees, in large part due to opposition
from mayors, developers, and economic development officials who stand to see their power diminished.
Supreme Court Rules
Government can seize your home. The American Conservative Union sharply
condemned [the recent] highly controversial 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that local governments
may use eminent domain to take people's homes and businesses and turn them over to private
developers. … "It is outrageous to think that the government can take away your home
any time it wants to build a shopping mall," said ACU Chairman David Keene.
Supreme Court Rules Cities
May Seize Homes for Private Use. The Supreme Court today [6/23/2005] effectively
expanded the right of local governments to seize private property under eminent domain, ruling
that people's homes and businesses — even those not considered blighted — can
be taken against their will for private development if the seizure serves a broadly
defined "public use."
Kelo in mass quantities:
Florida City Plans to Drive 6,000
Citizens from Their Homes. "It can't happen here" was the prevailing initial response
of Florida's public officials after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2005 in Kelo v. City of
New London. The state's attorney general even issued a statement evidently intended to calm
Floridians' fears that their local governments suddenly had carte blanche authority to seize
private property.
States may
raze Court's domain ruling. Policy makers from Texas to New Jersey have similar responses to [the
recent] Supreme Court ruling that makes it easier for the government to seize private property through eminent
domain: no thanks. The decision was seen initially as a loss for private property owners, but it may
lead to a backlash. A groundswell of support for homeowners and property rights has galvanized state
legislatures to rein in eminent domain authority.
Excellent!
Confiscating
property: The Court's decision helps explain the vicious attacks on any judicial
nominees who might use framer-intent to interpret the U.S. Constitution. America's
socialists want more control over our lives, property and our pocketbooks. They cannot
always get their way in the legislature, and the courts represent their only chance.
This land is your
land. No. Your land is their land. There was one problem with John
Revelli's property: It was on such a prime location, the government virtually stole it.
They Can't Take That Away From Me… Unless They
Can. Put simply, cities cannot take someone's house just because they think they can make better
use of it. Otherwise, argues Scott Bullock, Mrs Kelo's lawyer, you end up destroying private property
rights altogether. For if the sole yardstick is economic benefit, any house can be replaced at any time
by a business or shop (because they usually produce more tax revenues). Moreover, if city governments
can seize private property by claiming a public benefit which they themselves determine, where do they stop?
City to seize church by eminent
domain. The city of Long Beach, Calif., is using the power of eminent domain bolstered by last
summer's U.S. Supreme Court ruling to condemn a Baptist congregation's church building.
Another
government taking: Conaway Ranch is a 17,300-acre spread north of Davis, Calif. … Yolo
County wants the land. In 2004, county supervisors voted to seize the ranch by eminent
domain. "We want to keep it from being developed," explained Supervisor Mike McGowan.
New chance to curtail
eminent domain abuse. Carl and Joy Gamble, retirees who lived in the same house in
Norwood, a Cincinnati suburb, for more than three decades, did not realize their neighborhood
was "deteriorating." Neither did the Norwood City Council, until it heard about developer
Jeffrey Anderson's plan to build offices, condominiums, chain stores and a parking garage there.
Kelo's Implications are
Horrendous. Kelo does not mean the end of private property per se, but it does mean
the end of anyone's secure possession, be the owner an individual or a corporation. To the extent
that Americans still possess constitutional rights, Kelo could mean their end as well.
Black Activists Call for Eminent Domain
Restrictions in Virginia. The push to restrict the use of eminent domain for private
development in Virginia is getting an extra shove from black activists worried the homes and businesses
of minorities could be the main targets of real estate developers and local governments hungry for more
tax revenue.
Your Home is Your Cottage. Property
rights are in trouble just about everywhere. The latest trend hits an economic right Americans have
traditionally taken for granted: the right to build or buy the biggest home you can afford.
A New (London)
Low. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure
of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New
London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration
of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land
and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.
Hands off our
homes. A grass-roots movement has arisen to keep other people's hands off private
homes. Libertarian groups such as the Institute for Justice, which were campaigning against
eminent-domain abuse before Kelo, report an upsurge in support, both moral and monetary.
The
left is eyeing your home. When the Supreme Court decided seven weeks ago in
Kelo vs. New London to loosen constitutional restraints on local governments taking your
house and selling it to Wal-Mart, it triggered a wave of public revulsion from New England
to South Los Angeles. … Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) cosponsored a successful
amendment to stop federal Community Development Block Grants from going to any locale that
doesn't prohibit eminent domain seizures for private development. … House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) opposed Waters' amendment, arguing that the Supreme
Court decision "is almost as if God has spoken."
Editorial Comment: Actually
there's more truth than poetry in that statement, because if the government is Congresswoman
Pelosi's god, then her god has spoken.
It takes a
village … of property owners. Governments historically use eminent domain
to acquire private property for "public use," defined as a road, bridge or a school. Here,
the city bluntly acknowledges its goal — a higher tax base.
Private Property
in Peril. Property owners beware. If an owner does not make maximum
productive use of his property, government is now empowered to transfer the property to
another person.
School district sells
24.7 acres to Home Depot for $30 million. Three years after using eminent domain to take
possession of a 24.7-acre parcel in Kearny Mesa, the San Diego Unified School District is selling the vacant
land to Home Depot for $11.2 million more than it paid. The school board was scheduled today
[11/09/2004] to authorize the district to begin escrow on the $30 million sale. District officials
said the site is unsuitable for a school and there is no other school district use for it.
Arkansas
wrongly seized, sold man's home, justices rule. The Supreme Court declared Wednesday [4/26/2006]
that a state must take steps to ensure that a property owner is sufficiently notified of a tax delinquency
before it seizes and sells a home. The decision revealed an irritation among the majority for how Arkansas
officials used the "extraordinary power" to seize a home.
Land
Seized for Animal Shelter May Be Sold to Developer-Donor. A year after Los Angeles seized
three acres from a private company to construct a public building, a city councilman wants to sell the
land to another private firm for a commercial development.
PBS Analysts Ridicule Eminent Domain
Concerns of Conservatives. During PBS's coverage Wednesday [9/14/2005] of the Senate
hearing with Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, analysts ridiculed the concern of some conservative
Senators over the Supreme Court's recent eminent domain ruling and mocked the role of naive talk
radio hosts.
Private
Property at the Mercy of Government. When, if ever, does government have
the power to take the property of A and turn it over to B? According to a June 23
ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (Kelo vs City of New London), government can do that whenever
it thinks that B will pay more in taxes.
New book
Opening the
Floodgates: Eminent Domain Abuse In the Post-Kelo World.
Supreme Court OKs Expansion of Takings
Power. The U.S. Supreme Court gave a major victory to urban planners, large property
owners, and government in the Kelo v. New London decision announced June 23. The major
losers are those who treasure private property rights and the respect for those rights set forth in the
U.S. Constitution and those with the least political power to protect themselves.
Take That,
David. An application has been made to condemn the family home of Supreme Court
Justice David Souter, to make way for hotel development.
Kelo Ruling Puts American Dream at
Risk: Justice David Souter is probably breathing a sigh of relief. Last month, New
Hampshire voters rebuffed attempts to seize the Supreme Court justice's home and transform it into a
private inn. This effort was an orchestrated protest of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in
Kelo v. New London, in which Souter joined the majority. While theatrical, the proposed seizure of
Souter's home is not surprising: There are few recent Supreme Court cases that elicit as visceral a
reaction as Kelo. As well it should.
Missouri Bank Refuses to Finance Eminent
Domain Development Projects. A Missouri-based bank has announced it "will not lend money
for projects in which local governments use eminent domain to take private property for use by private
developers," making it the second lending institution in the nation to do so.
Supreme Court Ruling
Opens the Door to Abuse. Economic theory tells us that secure private property
rights are one of the essential foundations of a free society and an important engine of
growth. By raising the odds that eminent domain powers will be exercised expansively,
the Kelo decision has seriously undermined those rights.
Sentence
First, Verdict Later. In Kelo v. New London the Court moved us further away
from the "red state" view of property rights by giving virtually carte blanche to local
governments to seize, and demolish any person's home. … The Court declared that the
involuntary transfer of property from you to any corporation, shopping mall or other
business interest can be a lawful exercise of government power.
Reaction to the Supreme Court Decision
in Kelo Eminent Domain Case. The U.S. Supreme Court has given a major victory to urban
planners, large property owners, and government in the Kelo decision announced June 23. The major
losers are those who treasure private property rights and the respect for those rights set forth in the U.S.
Constitution and those with the least political power to protect themselves.
Human
rights v. property rights: Property rights are human rights to use economic
goods and services. Private property rights contain your right to use, transfer,
trade and exclude others from use of property deemed yours. The supposition that
there's a conflict or difference between human rights to use property and civil rights
is bogus and misguided.
With just a few additional ingredients, the Kelo decision could result in
a Zimbabwe situation.
Lessons from the Kelo Decision:
One week after the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Americans are still reeling from the shock of having our
nation's highest tribunal endorse using government power to condemn private homes to benefit a property developer.
Even as we celebrate our independence from England this July 4th, we find ourselves increasingly enslaved by
petty bureaucrats at every level of government. The anger engendered by the Kelo case certainly resonates
on this holiday based on rebellion against government.
Florida Eminent
Domain Plan Could Be the Largest. The project, potentially one of the country's largest eminent
domain seizures, has placed Riviera Beach at the center of a nationwide battle over whether government should
be allowed to seize property for private development.
Why we need
conservative judges: Citizens don't need their lives defined by others. They
need protection. And the vulnerable particularly need protection. Protection means
having a legal code that has integrity and having judges that see their job as relating to that
law to protect people from the unjust encroachment by others. I would say a society of
tyranny is one in which it is never clear what the law is and how I am protected. Ironically,
this also characterizes a liberal society. This couldn't have been driven home more clearly
than by the Supreme Court's recent eminent-domain decision in the Kelso v. City of New London
case.
Never Mind the Kelo, Here's
Scott Bullock. It was rather shocking that a majority of the Supreme Court
would permit this type of abuse. We're in an America where, as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
points out, church property can be taken for a Costco, a farm can be turned into a factory, and a
neighborhood can be leveled for a shopping mall. Most people cannot believe that this can
happen in this country and the Supreme Court gave sanction to that with their decision.
The
Supreme Court's reverse Robin Hoods: No one disputes that this power
of "eminent domain" makes sense in limited circumstances; the Constitution's Fifth
Amendment explicitly provides for it. But the plain reading of that Amendment's
"takings clause" also appears to require that eminent domain be invoked only when land
is required for genuine "public use" such as roads. It further requires that the
government pay owners "just compensation" in such cases. The founding fathers added this
clause to the Fifth Amendment … because they understood that there could be no meaningful
liberty in a country where the fruits of one's labor are subject to arbitrary government seizure.
When Justices
become dictators: This week, the Supreme Court of the United States once again
proved that it is a feckless, dictatorial and altogether ridiculous body. Its latest
spate of decisions reveals legislative usurpation, disingenuous deference and silly
inconsistency. But, of course, what else should we expect from the court that
tells us our Constitution protects pornography but not political advertising, sodomy
but not the Ten Commandments, and mentally disabled murderers but not private property?
Theft by
government: As the nation was waiting to see where the Supreme Court would
tolerate displaying the Ten Commandments, the court violated one.
Your house
could be a parking lot. Think your house is your castle? Our country's Founders
thought so. They put three provisions into the Bill of Rights to protect it. But last
week, the Supreme Court said the government can take away your house just because it thinks
someone else could make better use of your home or business than you can.
Your castle no
more. The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing a local government to kick out of the
house in which she was born 87-year-old Wilhelmina Dery and her husband who has lived there
with her for 60 years. Why? The government wants to seize their property, bulldoze
their house and many others and sell the land to businesses and developers for private uses.
High Court to homeowners: Stick
'em up! It's like a bad dream, or a summer disaster movie. But this is real. We live
under a regime that can and often does grab our homes and small businesses to create what politicians call
"economic development." The process is simple: the government takes our property, pays us what it
thinks the property's worth, and then hands our property — in finely crafted "sweetheart
deals" — to developers and big corporations that will produce greater tax revenue.
Eminent injustice in New
London. Would your town's tax base grow if your home were bulldozed and replaced with a
parking garage? If so, it may not be your home for long.
Damaging 'Deference':
The question answered Thursday was: Can government profit by seizing the property of people of modest
means and giving it to wealthy people who can pay more taxes than can be extracted from the original
owners? The court answered yes.
Supreme Court
Ruling on Seizure of Private Property Highly Disturbing. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
wrote the dissenting opinion for the court, arguing against the unconstrained authority of government
to displace families and small businesses in order to accommodate developers. "The specter of
condemnation hangs over all property," stated the Justice in her opinion.
Eminent domain ruling 'disastrous'. A
ruling handed down today by the Supreme Court paves the way for local governments to seize private property
and hand it over to developers and other private businesses. … While eminent domain may be necessary to
build public projects such as roads and bridges, this decision will allow private homes to be taken to
build shopping malls, hotels and theaters.
Supreme Court: Public
Use is Whatever Governments Say. "This is a dark day for property owners
throughout the country and particularly for citizens living anywhere near covetous local
governments," said William Perry Pendley of Mountain States Legal Foundation.
Hail seizers! The
New York Times cheers on the land grabbers. According to the Court, the Fifth Amendment,
which allows the government to take property "for public use" provided it pays "just compensation," is
a license to transfer any parcel of land from its current owner to someone the government thinks
will make better use of it.
This Land is My Land: Reforming
Eminent Domain after Kelo v.City of New London. On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the
city of New London's use of eminent domain to condemn several properties the city claimed stood in the way of
additional tax revenues and new jobs. However, Justice Stevens, author of the majority opinion in Kelo,
explained that nothing precludes states from restricting their takings power. Doing so is a first step
toward assuring homeowners that they can keep what they own.
EFF raises the
Gadsden flag in protest of Supreme Court property rights decision. The
Gadsden flag was the fighting standard chosen by American patriots during the
Revolutionary War. The English government was infringing upon the fundamental rights
of life, liberty and property, and, as a result, the American colonists revolted. The
Gadsden flag, with the famous words "Don't tread on me," best portrayed their sentiment.
Property Damage: With
yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, the nation's highest court has
essentially given federal, state and local governments an unlimited ability to take a private
citizen's property as long as proper payment is made. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution prohibits private property from being taken through eminent domain without "just
compensation," but it further stipulates that the property must be taken for a "public use." In
Kelo, the Supreme Court watered down the public use requirement so as to make it almost meaningless.
Update:
Kelo,
GM, and the Stimulus: Three Examples of Government-Induced Failure. On November 9,
pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced that it would abandon its eight-year-old research and development facility
in New London, Connecticut. That decision effectively ended the chances of any additional development taking
place in the city's Fort Trumbull area, the subject of June 2005's infamous Kelo v. New London Supreme Court
decision. Citing what Justice John Paul Stevens called a "carefully formulated ... development plan," the
Court's decision allowed the city to condemn and bulldoze dozens of houses. Today, the area, except for the
politically connected Italian Dramatic Club, is a vacant wasteland.
Justices
Back Forced Sale of Property. The Supreme Court gave cities broad power
Thursday [6/23/2005] to bulldoze homes and small stores to make way for business development,
a ruling the dissenters said put shopkeepers and homeowners at the mercy of revenue-hungry
governments. The 5-4 ruling against a small group of residents in New London, Conn., goes
further than ever before in allowing government to invoke its power of "eminent domain" to
seize private property from unwilling sellers.
Supreme
Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes. Cities may bulldoze people's homes
to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court
ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to
generate tax revenue. In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said
the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.
New Jersey to
Expand Seizures in Gun Cases. A New Jersey state assemblyman has introduced a
bill that would allow the government to seize the home or car of anyone whose property
contains an illegal firearm. In New Jersey, nearly every gun is considered "illegal."
The abusers of
eminent domain. What the Supreme Court in the 18th century found unthinkable,
the Supreme Court of the 20th century made lawful. In Berman v. Parker, a 1954 case, a
unanimous court permitted eminent domain to be deployed for purposes of what was
then called "urban renewal." Berman's narrow exception soon became an open
floodgate of eminent-domain abuse.
Supreme
Court taking on sticky issue of eminent domain. The American Dream is to start a
small business and develop it through years of hard work and investment. Location is the
key to most businesses, and entrepreneurs typically build their reputation at a particular
spot. But lately, many have been greeted by a surprise message from city hall: Their
town is taking their property for the benefit of someone else. A lifetime of effort is
suddenly snuffed by the arbitrary decision of a few councilmen or unelected city planners.
Confiscating
homes. What would you call it if someone forced you to sell your home, even
though you didn't want to sell and didn't agree to the price? You would call it
theft and phone 911. But the realm of government is cloaked in terminology designed
to hide unpleasant realities. When the government does this, it's
called "eminent domain," and it's legal.
The Asset Forfeiture
Manual: Judges, lawyers, and other government officials enjoy various
levels of personal immunity provided by both law and "professional courtesy." How
do you sue a lawyer for malpractice? You hire another lawyer - if you can
find one who'll take the case. How do you sue an IRS agent for violating your
Constitutional rights? Only with great difficulty. How you sue a judge for
railroading you in court? You don't.
Ashcroft
Orders Destruction of DOJ Documents. The Department of Justice requested the
Government Printing Office to order depository libraries to remove and destroy five
publications regarding asset forfeiture no longer to be available to the general public.
Socialism is
evil. What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of
left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of
society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property
are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of
private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to,
confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it
doesn't belong.
Bandits with Badges:
Society has no problem with law enforcement fighting crime or even confiscating property used in a criminal
enterprise but, as with any law, the good intent for which the law was created, has been immensely abused to
the point that innocent citizens are losing everything they ever worked for without even being charged or
convicted of a crime. Clearly, states need to pass laws to safeguard the rights of the innocent from
zealot law enforcement agencies run amuck from the smell of greed.
The War on
Crime: Today, more than 200 different kinds of forfeiture laws exist in
America, and items are often seized on mere suspicion. Some 80% of people who have
their property seized are never formally charged with a crime. Attempts to recover
seized property is a legal nightmare for private citizens.
Government
seizures begin to spur backlash. While the U.S. Constitution allows
governments to use eminent domain, that power generally had been restricted to acquiring
land to build roads, schools and other infrastructure government needed to carry out its
role of providing for the public welfare. But scholars say that began to change in
the 1950s when local governments began using eminent domain as a means to clean slums.
Highway "forfeiture traps" are apparently still alive and
flourishing. A few years ago these forfeiture traps on interstate highways were getting a lot of
media attention. Television news shows such as 20/20 and 60 Minutes aired exposes on forfeiture
traps in Volusia County, Florida, and Sulphur, Louisiana. Local police in these small towns made millions
of dollars in profits by trolling the interstate highways and stopping travelers with out of state tags.
The police typically claimed some traffic infraction, asked permission to search the car and got it, found no
drugs but some cash, then brought in a drug sniffing dog, and after getting it to "alert," seized all the
travelers' money.
DEA's crazy
train: "Amtrak is providing federal drug police in Albuquerque with
ticketing information about passengers," writes Jeff Jones in the April 11 [2001]
Albuquerque Journal, "and Amtrak police get 10 percent of any cash seized from
suspected drug couriers at the Downtown station."
Government
Property Seizures out of Control: Across America, the Drug Enforcement
Administration is seizing the luggage, cash and cars of hapless travelers. And the
government is keeping the property of people who have committed no crime.
Railway Bandits:
Amtrak manages to lose money on 39 of its 41 routes, but that doesn't stop it from making a
killing off some of its customers. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, Amtrak officials cut a
deal with the Drug Enforcement Administration: In exchange for giving the drug police
access to its booking system, Amtrak gets 10 percent of any money the cops take from
hapless passengers.
Legislator eyes unused gift card
value. Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) said today [12/26/2006] that the value of unused gift cards
should go to the state treasury — not to the merchant — and that change will be part of
a bill he'll introduce in the legislative session starting in January. Kessler said millions of dollars
a year go unused by gift card recipients, and retailers are allowed to book the unused values after the
cards expire.
Related stories:
To
Protect and Collect
Why the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act
Will Not Significantly Reform the Practice of Forfeiture
Supreme
Court Says Police May "Impound" House: The Supreme Court
ruled 8-1 Tuesday (02/20/2001) that Illinois police acted constitutionally
when they kept a man from entering his trailer home while they spent two hours getting a
search warrant.
Plunder
Patrol: The alarming saga of IRS abuse: The
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is our nation's largest law enforcement
agency. Armed with virtually unlimited power, it collects not only taxes,
but intimate details about the personal lives of virtually every American.
Not So Eminent Domain. On June 23,
2005, the U.S. Supreme Court said that New London, Connecticut, could force the sale of Susette Kelo's house.
The question before the court had been whether the city's plan for her neighborhood — private condos,
a privately owned hotel, and laboratories for a private-sector corporation, Pfizer Inc. — was a
"public use" under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. The city said it was, because it would
generate taxes and jobs. Five of the nine members of the court swallowed that argument. By
one vote, Susette Kelo lost.
Back to Abuse of Power
Back to the Home page
|
|
