September 28, 2004

High court to decide when cities can seize private land
Case involves town's plan to raze homes, businesses for riverfront hotel

By GINA HOLLAND

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide when local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will to make way for projects like shopping malls and hotel complexes that produce more tax revenue.

The court already has given governments broad power to take private property through eminent domain, provided the owner is given "just compensation." These situations often involve blighted neighborhoods.

But in recent years, more cities and towns have been accused of abusing their authority, razing nicer homes to make way for parking lots for casinos and other tax-producing businesses.

"If you own a home, if you own a small business, this could directly affect you," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the landowners.

In agreeing to hear a Connecticut case early next year, justices will revisit an issue they last dealt with 20 years ago. The court unanimously ruled then that Hawaii could take land from owners of large properties and resell it to others, and determined that such decisions were best left to elected leaders.

In the latest case, Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to bulldoze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to budge, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property.

The neighborhood includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses, some owned by several generations of families. New London, a town of less than 26,000, had been losing residents and jobs when its government planned the land takeover, city leaders said.

The Fifth Amendment allows governments to take private property for "public use."

The appeal turns on whether "public use" includes seizures not only to revitalize slums or build new roads or schools, but to raze unblighted homes and businesses to bring in more money for a town.

The case is Kelo v. City of New London, 04-108.

©Associated Press 2004

 

Fair Use Notice
This site occasionally reprints copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues and to highlight the accomplishments of our affiliates. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is available without profit. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

---