Not only that, you aren't even garunteed a fair value for your property, or even the ability to set your own price on your own goddamn personal(ie. not corporate or production intended for sale) property.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5472349.html
Cities get more power to seize homes
Michael Doyle, Star Tribune Washington Bureau
June 24, 2005 SCOT0624
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Local governments can condemn private property and convert it to more profitable private use, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In one of the most closely watched cases of the year, the court in a 5-4 ruling extended the eminent domain powers that frequently incite controversy. It's a marked victory for city planners and local officials over private property advocates.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, adding that "quite simply, the government's pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties."
But with Justice Clarence Thomas denouncing the decision as "far-reaching and dangerous," the Connecticut case called Kelo vs. City of New London is also ringing some alarm bells.
"This is easily the most important case of the term," said Timothy Sandefur, an attorney with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, based in Sacramento, Calif. "It holds that every private house in the country is for sale, whether you know it or not."
The case's far-flung implications have drawn many groups into the legal fight. An unusually large number of outside organizations, including the Pacific Legal Foundation, tried to sway the justices with friend-of-the-court briefs.
The case involves government's power of eminent domain, with a twist.
Governments can seize private property for public purposes; for instance, to build a road. Such seizures have provoked repeated court fights, often over the compensation owed the property owner.
Case has a twist
The Kelo case is different, involving the seizing of private property for other private purposes that also promise a public benefit. Such condemnations happen regularly.
An estimated 10,000 cases of condemnation or threatened condemnation for the benefit of private parties occurred between 1998 and 2003, according to a study for the libertarian Institute for Justice. Kansas City, Kan., for instance, used eminent domain to condemn 150 homes to secure the land for a racetrack, while the Mississippi town of Canton secured land for a Nissan manufacturing plant.
Facing double-digit unemployment, the city of New London has likewise sought to use eminent domain to develop a research and development office park. The proposed location, next to a major new Pfizer Inc. pharmaceutical plant, is the waterfront land now owned by nurse Susette Kelo and her neighbors.
New London officials covet the additional tax revenue and jobs promised by the new development. Kelo and her neighbors retorted that the plans don't fit within the meaning of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which requires "just compensation" when private property is taken "for public use."
The gist of the court fight was whether economic development amounts to a public use; or, viewed another way, how much power government can wield.
"I was in this battle to save my home," Kelo said Thursday, "and in the process protect the rights of working-class homeowners throughout the country."
In his majority opinion, Stevens said it is "perfectly clear" that governments cannot seize an individual's property "for the sole purpose" of transferring ownership to someone else. At the same time, he stressed that the court "long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public."
Prior cases effectively stretched the public-use requirement to include economic benefits, Stevens concluded. He was joined in the opinion by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter.
"For more than a century, our public-use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power," Stevens wrote.
New London's economic development plan appeared reasonable and "carefully formulated" even though Kelo's working-class neighborhood was not considered blighted, Stevens reasoned.
Similar arguments might now apply elsewhere throughout the country.
In Minneapolis, the city's redevelopment agency condemned a parcel owned by one developer so that a Target store could be built by another developer. Minnesota courts upheld the condemnation. In a similar vein, the Minneapolis Community Development Agency threatened in 2002 to condemn a 3-acre site so a privately owned housing development could be built; the owner sold.
The dissenters
"Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in dissent.
Joined by Thomas, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, O'Connor warned that the court's ruling will simply "wash out any distinction between private and public use of property."
"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."
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5472349.html
Cities get more power to seize homes
Michael Doyle, Star Tribune Washington Bureau
June 24, 2005 SCOT0624
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Local governments can condemn private property and convert it to more profitable private use, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In one of the most closely watched cases of the year, the court in a 5-4 ruling extended the eminent domain powers that frequently incite controversy. It's a marked victory for city planners and local officials over private property advocates.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, adding that "quite simply, the government's pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties."
But with Justice Clarence Thomas denouncing the decision as "far-reaching and dangerous," the Connecticut case called Kelo vs. City of New London is also ringing some alarm bells.
"This is easily the most important case of the term," said Timothy Sandefur, an attorney with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, based in Sacramento, Calif. "It holds that every private house in the country is for sale, whether you know it or not."
The case's far-flung implications have drawn many groups into the legal fight. An unusually large number of outside organizations, including the Pacific Legal Foundation, tried to sway the justices with friend-of-the-court briefs.
The case involves government's power of eminent domain, with a twist.
Governments can seize private property for public purposes; for instance, to build a road. Such seizures have provoked repeated court fights, often over the compensation owed the property owner.
Case has a twist
The Kelo case is different, involving the seizing of private property for other private purposes that also promise a public benefit. Such condemnations happen regularly.
An estimated 10,000 cases of condemnation or threatened condemnation for the benefit of private parties occurred between 1998 and 2003, according to a study for the libertarian Institute for Justice. Kansas City, Kan., for instance, used eminent domain to condemn 150 homes to secure the land for a racetrack, while the Mississippi town of Canton secured land for a Nissan manufacturing plant.
Facing double-digit unemployment, the city of New London has likewise sought to use eminent domain to develop a research and development office park. The proposed location, next to a major new Pfizer Inc. pharmaceutical plant, is the waterfront land now owned by nurse Susette Kelo and her neighbors.
New London officials covet the additional tax revenue and jobs promised by the new development. Kelo and her neighbors retorted that the plans don't fit within the meaning of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which requires "just compensation" when private property is taken "for public use."
The gist of the court fight was whether economic development amounts to a public use; or, viewed another way, how much power government can wield.
"I was in this battle to save my home," Kelo said Thursday, "and in the process protect the rights of working-class homeowners throughout the country."
In his majority opinion, Stevens said it is "perfectly clear" that governments cannot seize an individual's property "for the sole purpose" of transferring ownership to someone else. At the same time, he stressed that the court "long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public."
Prior cases effectively stretched the public-use requirement to include economic benefits, Stevens concluded. He was joined in the opinion by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter.
"For more than a century, our public-use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power," Stevens wrote.
New London's economic development plan appeared reasonable and "carefully formulated" even though Kelo's working-class neighborhood was not considered blighted, Stevens reasoned.
Similar arguments might now apply elsewhere throughout the country.
In Minneapolis, the city's redevelopment agency condemned a parcel owned by one developer so that a Target store could be built by another developer. Minnesota courts upheld the condemnation. In a similar vein, the Minneapolis Community Development Agency threatened in 2002 to condemn a 3-acre site so a privately owned housing development could be built; the owner sold.
The dissenters
"Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in dissent.
Joined by Thomas, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, O'Connor warned that the court's ruling will simply "wash out any distinction between private and public use of property."
"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."
Comment