Kelo loses

In a predictable split, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that it is within the Constitution to allow a local government to take property from one private owner and transfer it to another in hopes of realizing higher tax revenue.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the case turned on the question of whether New London's development plan served a "public purpose." He added, "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."

New London officials "were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference," Stevens wrote. "The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs and increased tax revenue."

Stevens added that "because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment."

He was joined in that view by justices Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Dissenting were justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as well as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

In a strongly worded dissenting opinion, O'Connor wrote that the majority's decision overturns a long-held principle that eminent domain cannot be used simply to transfer property from one private owner to another.

"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power," she wrote. "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 -- i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public -- in the process."

The effect of the decision, O'Connor said, "is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property -- and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

The ruling has broad potential implications nationwide, giving cities wider authority to condemn homes and businesses to make way for more lucrative developments.

It gets worse.

During oral arguments before the court, it emerged that the land parcels at issue were earmarked for office space and "support" for the park or marina, possibly meaning a parking lot.

How encouraging.

Via Michelle Malkin.

Comments

[Scott]

I am utterly disgusted with this ruling. There's nothing else I can say.

[patriot actor]

it's called expanded eminent domain. you think this is the first time the government - any government, be it local, state or federal - has claimed eminent domain for purpose other than building a road or other like-minded project? No one likes eminent domain. However, it has been a very public policy of this country since it was founded. Get over it. Now what about that draft ...

[Scott]

"However, it has been a very public policy of this country since it was founded. Get over it."

They're putting up a hotel, health club and a bunch of other companies to serve the Pfizer office in the area. I'm sure the residents of that area who have no use for any of these "public amenities" will "get over it" fairly soon.