Law and Legal Expert

Kelo V. Location: New London – Is your property in good hands ?

article by Michael Pancheri

majority of the House of Representatives approved legislation last Thursday to limit known by the domain of state and municipal powers. Bill, who was 376-38 margin, stop federal money from state and local governments, if they used their eminent domain powers to seize private property and sell it to private developers.

House actions in response to the Supreme Court decision of Kelo vs. New London City. The landmark, which was held this year on 23 June, the Supreme Court ruled that New London, Connecticut, urban, working-class citizens, to take private property and sell it to wealthy developers to create Riverfront hotel and office complex.

The decision sent shock waves throughout the ranks of property owners everywhere, and for all levels of politicians to propose legislation that would restrict the taking of private property. House of the bill, which was held last Thursday, is a direct response to the Kelo decision. However, whether the law ever become law or not, the real concern is the growing tendency among ordinary citizens at the expense of individuals more power and concentration of wealth in this country towards.

those who are not completely familiar with the Kelo case, a brief summary may be useful. 1998, New London City adopted a development plan for its Fort Trumbull area of ​​approximately 90 hectares. Plan waterfront conference hotel, Riverwalk, restaurants, shops, 80 new residences, the new U.S. Coast Guard Museum, a renovated pier – all of which are adjacent, 0 million. Research facility to be built by Pfizer, Inc., a pharmaceutical company.

2000 January the city attorney has approved the plan and the NLDC and its development agent, to purchase or acquire eminent domain. Most of the properties of the procurements in any way, in particular, that Susette Kelo and several others refused to sell. As a result, NLDC initiated the condemnation proceedings, which caused the Kelo case.

Susette Kelo and other opponents argued that New London’s attempt to take eminent domain property of their city was a violation of their constitutional rights, because their property was taken for public use. Instead, it was sold to private developers to develop Riverfront Hotel, which is privately owned and operated. Opponents of the legislation, the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which reads as follows – the part – as follows:

“…; private property, must also be taken for public use, without just compensation. ” [Emphasis added]

5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that New London City did not violate the opponent’s rights under the fifth amendment to the so-called “condition.” The justification, according to the Steven “the majority view or not to be condemned in the New London city property should be included in the public domain, but whether New London’s development plan for City – all – served the public purpose.” Addressing this issue, he noted that the court in interpreting “public use” broadly and that the history of respect for the determination of the legislature on this issue should have been. “When the legislature’s purpose is legitimate and its means are not irrational,” the Supreme Court will not second guess the legislature. In this case, New London’s urban development plan, according to the Court, “carefully formatted and the city believed that the development would” provide appreciable benefits to the community, including – but by no means only – new jobs and increase tax revenues. “

However, one of the Court’s rationale, it is clear that the fifth amendment to the property rights have been significantly diminished by Kelo decision. Before the Kelo decision, private property can not be taken for public use, ie use of roads, museums, public buildings and offices, etc. Now, after Kelo, state or local governments can take private property and transfer it to private developer called the development plan.

Court made clear, however, that the state or local government can only provide the confiscated property to private developers, when it is a development plan that serves a “public purpose.” The Court can not define “public purpose.” Instead, she said, that the term “public purpose” was to be broadly defined, and that respect should be paid to the legislature on this issue. So, not only by the Court to give local and state authorities have the right to private property and to private developers, it also left it up to local and state governments to decide for themselves when it was appropriate to do so. In doing so every local and state governments the right to private property without so much as a wink from the courts and NOB.

But it’s not the end. Legislators, the most part, good and decent people who generally want to do good to their constituencies. The problem comes from large corporations and wealthy individuals who want more. In the past, their efforts to acquire property only negotiating with property owners, who often insisted on its assets or premium sometimes refused to sell a total of relegated. Now, after Kelo, if their efforts to negotiate with the property owners are not successful, they will go straight to the politicians, that the property seized.

Will there be comforted that our local and state politicians will not be too much affected by large corporations and wealthy individuals? Of course, the citizens of Connecticut are already aware of how corruption and undue influence may be affected by their policies – the former governor and his lieutenants are already receiving jail or pack your bags, because they turned profitable deals in private land developers. In his dissenting opinion in Kelo, Justice Thomas also recognized the inherent danger when he stated that “It encourages citizens of the disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms” victimize poor.

Justice Stevens also found that the risk inherent in the Court of Justice., Last paragraph, in his view, he argues that “We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on the electricity energy companies. “Of course, if the private interest groups will try to influence local and state politicians, the private property through eminent domain, then it’s not unreasonable view that they will also try to influence those same politicians to overcome all the limitations of their famous counterfeit. domain powers.

So we go back to the account most of the House of Representatives approved. The question now is what impact of private interest groups for the upcoming Senate vote. If they successfully kill this bill, then we can be fairly confident that local and state politicians, as well as everywhere, property owners will have to brace ourselves hard drive

Copyright 2005. LivingTrustNetwork, LLC.

this segment exhibits eh! Episode 7: Strange design, Frank and Todd visit hosts Winnipeg Manitoba Legislative Building. Most people do not know, but it is full of mysterious Masonic symbols that parallel to King Solomon’s Temple in Egypt. Egypt
Video Rating: 4 / 5