Writing in dissent of yesterday’s decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said cities shouldn’t be allowed to uproot a family in order 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,” 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.”
Justice Clarence Thomas’ addition to O’Conner’s dissent: “If such ‘economic development’ takings are for a ‘public use,’ any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution.”
Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the AFA Center for Law & Policy, said America’s founders “held that government was instituted to protect property as much as persons, but today’s high court no longer respects private property.”
“There is a world of difference between taking private property for a legitimate public use, such as the building of a road, and some private developer’s get-rich-quick scheme,” he said. “In effect, the Supreme Court has written over city hall: ‘The government giveth, and the government taketh away.’”
No, I don’t see it as a radical departure - the issue was never about eminent domain per se , but the definition of the term “public use.” State legislatures already restrict eminent domain in that they (the legislatures) set the parameters for its use through enabling legislation found in the various State codes. VA’s eminent domain statutes, for example, are very limiting and, as a consequence, you very rarely hear of eminent domain being used here. I’ve been a practicing land use planner for more than 15 years, I’ve worked in some of the fastest growing localities in the state, and I’ve been involved in only one case. Legislatures don’t tend to take action on issues that aren’t “hot button,” so you haven’t seen much action in the arena.
And my state gave birth to the only-recently-overruled Poletown case. So from over here, *Kelo * is yesterday’s lettuce. What still amazes me is that the general public did not notice this until Kelo
Do you know what the zoning of your property is? Have you ever seen a copy of your local Comprehensive Land Use Plan? Ever attended a public hearing on a rezoning? A Board of Zoning Appeals hearing? If so, come to the head of the class.
You mention any of these to the average person and their eyes glaze over. I’m not in the least surprised that the general public didn’t know a thing about the cases.
::sigh:: I suppose you are right. I mean, I learned all about takings law in law school–we didn’t study any of the workaday stuff–so we spent several weeks on the subject. It just strikes me as odd that all of the sudden a rather easy case comes down, and everyone starts screaming.
Regarding your questions I have never owned real estate, but for my clients, I have done all of the above, though usually with the guidance of someone much more experienced than me.
It was announced on the radio today that Tom DeLay is spearheading legislation that provides that if any governmental authority exercises this new power of eminent domain and takes private property for non-public use, they will lose all federal funding, period.
[Homer Simpson]mmmmm Vegas. mmmmm buffets[/Homer]
I think DeLay may have a chance. The newspapers in L.A. are aginst it, there are various legislators against it at the federal level, and there are other legislators at the state level who realize they will be booted out of office (lose the next election or be recalled) if they don’t fight. I still need to see what California law says about it in detail, but I understand we are a little safer than people in some other states. Just the same, I already drafted letters to Boxer and Feinstein.
so don’t bet on it