Post by news on Jun 23, 2005 7:11:37 GMT -8
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person's home for a development project aimed at revitalizing a depressed local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact.
ADVERTISEMENT
By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.
Under the U.S. Constitution, governments can take private property through their so-called eminent domain powers in exchange for just compensation, but only when it is for public use.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority that the city's proposed disposition of the property at issue qualified as a "public use" under the Constitution.
He said the city's determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation was entitled to deference.
The decision affecting individual property rights could have broad impact. The issue has arisen across the nation as cities have sought new ways to promote growth and create jobs in depressed areas.
The Supreme Court's last major ruling on using eminent domain for private development was in 1954, when it upheld the taking of property to eliminate slums or blight after finding that such condemnations constituted a public use.
The decision was a victory for New London, which argued that because the development will create jobs, increase tax revenues and help the local economy, it satisfied the Constitution's public-use requirement.
The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property.
Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic.
He said promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted government function.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050623/ts_nm/court_property_dc;_ylt=Akb.fb4WKtrU6oeV9fTTHadZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
ADVERTISEMENT
By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.
Under the U.S. Constitution, governments can take private property through their so-called eminent domain powers in exchange for just compensation, but only when it is for public use.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority that the city's proposed disposition of the property at issue qualified as a "public use" under the Constitution.
He said the city's determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation was entitled to deference.
The decision affecting individual property rights could have broad impact. The issue has arisen across the nation as cities have sought new ways to promote growth and create jobs in depressed areas.
The Supreme Court's last major ruling on using eminent domain for private development was in 1954, when it upheld the taking of property to eliminate slums or blight after finding that such condemnations constituted a public use.
The decision was a victory for New London, which argued that because the development will create jobs, increase tax revenues and help the local economy, it satisfied the Constitution's public-use requirement.
The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property.
Stevens said the proposal by the families that the court adopt a bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic.
He said promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted government function.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050623/ts_nm/court_property_dc;_ylt=Akb.fb4WKtrU6oeV9fTTHadZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl