Our big brother is at it again. I don’t know what to think of this. This is like something that you would see in Zimbabwe or somewhere like that. At least here they will give you some money for it. I guess we should be greatful for that.

Supreme Court rules against property owners
Impacts for rapidly-growing municipalities By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Local governments may seize individuals’ businesses and homes to promote economic development, the Supreme Court ruled in a split decision Thursday.
In a closely watched case, petitioners from New London, Conn. challenged the government’s use of eminent domain to take and pay for private property and use it for private economic development.

Home and business owners’ contention that economic development doesn’t qualify as public use “is supported by neither precedent nor logic,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting.

The case’s wheels were set in motion in 1998 when pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. (PFE: news, chart, profile) agreed to build a $270 million research facility next to the area in dispute. The New London City Council later adopted a redevelopment plan to transform 90 acres of the targeted neighborhood.

The City Council then transferred power of eminent domain to a private, nonprofit group of residents and business owners called the New London Development Corp., which seeks to build a hotel complex, conference center, offices and other structures.

Homeowner Susette Kelo and others petitioned the Supreme Court in the case, arguing that the city has no right to take their property except to build projects for explicit public use like roads or schools.

Property rights advocates were outraged at the court’s decision.

“With today’s decision, no one’s property is safe,” said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies, at the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank. “Any time a government official thinks someone else can make better use of your property than you’re doing, he can order it condemned and transferred,” Pilon said in a statement.

Posted on June 23rd, 2005 by John
Filed under: Read It