[URBANTH-L]NEWS: US Supreme Court Affirms Property Seizures

[Angela Jancius]

[This troubling news will be of interest to anyone working in the U.S. -AJ]

Justices Affirm Property Seizures
5-4 Ruling Backs Forced Sales for Private Development

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 24, 2005; Page A01

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property
owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when
officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not
blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local
governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban
revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have
decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.

Opponents, including property-rights activists and advocates for elderly and
low-income urban residents, argued that forcibly shifting land from one
private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by
government except for "public use."

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in
which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such
traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land
redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs
in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.

The court should not "second-guess" local governments, Stevens added, noting
that "[p]romoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted
function of government."

Stevens's opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential
in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote,
the "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent
the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a
shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams, who serves as president of the National
League of Cities, issued a statement praising the court for upholding "one
of the most powerful tools city officials have to rejuvenate their
neighborhoods."

In addition to its national repercussions, the court's decision removed a
possible obstacle to the District's plans to build a baseball stadium along
the Anacostia River waterfront and to redevelop the Skyland Shopping Center
in Southeast -- a project Williams said could generate 300 jobs and $3.3
million in tax revenue.

A number of property owners in those areas had hoped the court ruling would
help them resist the city's exercise of eminent domain. But David A. Fuss,
an attorney for several of them, acknowledged that the court's ruling "is
going to have a major impact."

The redevelopment program at issue in yesterday's case -- the plan of the
Connecticut city of New London to turn 90 acres of waterfront land into
office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities near a $300
million research center being built by pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer -- was
also expected to generate hundreds of jobs and, city officials say, $680,000
in property tax revenue.
New London, with a population of about 24,000, is reeling from the 1996
closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had employed more than
1,500 people.

But owners of 15 homes on 1.54 acres of the proposed site had refused to go.
One of them, Susette Kelo, had extensively remodeled her home and wanted to
stay for its view of the water. Another, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her
house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life.

D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams, who serves as president of the National
League of Cities, issued a statement praising the court for upholding "one
of the most powerful tools city officials have to rejuvenate their
neighborhoods."

In addition to its national repercussions, the court's decision removed a
possible obstacle to the District's plans to build a baseball stadium along
the Anacostia River waterfront and to redevelop the Skyland Shopping Center
in Southeast -- a project Williams said could generate 300 jobs and $3.3
million in tax revenue.

A number of property owners in those areas had hoped the court ruling would
help them resist the city's exercise of eminent domain. But David A. Fuss,
an attorney for several of them, acknowledged that the court's ruling "is
going to have a major impact."

The redevelopment program at issue in yesterday's case -- the plan of the
Connecticut city of New London to turn 90 acres of waterfront land into
office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities near a $300
million research center being built by pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer -- was
also expected to generate hundreds of jobs and, city officials say, $680,000
in property tax revenue.
New London, with a population of about 24,000, is reeling from the 1996
closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had employed more than
1,500 people.

But owners of 15 homes on 1.54 acres of the proposed site had refused to go.
One of them, Susette Kelo, had extensively remodeled her home and wanted to
stay for its view of the water. Another, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her
house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life.

Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the institute, said that the only recourse for
property owners facing condemnation under eminent domain would be to sue in
state court based on the property rights provisions of each state's
constitution.

New London City Manager Richard M. Brown said he was "very pleased" by the
court's decision. He said the city hopes to restart its redevelopment plan,
which has lost money so far, partly because of the litigation.

In the disputed neighborhood, known as Fort Trumbull, most residents sold
out and their homes were demolished. The site is now a flat expanse of
dusty, rock-strewn soil dotted by the few remaining houses. Signs
advertising the development site are withered and torn; builders who once
considered projects have moved on, deterred by the controversy.

Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H.
Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Kennedy's vote was something of a surprise because he had expressed strong
sympathy for property-rights claims in past cases. But in a brief concurring
opinion he explained that the New London plan showed no sign of improper
favoritism toward any one private developer.

O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They wrote that the majority
had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in
the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
And in a separate dissent, Thomas sounded a rare note of agreement with
liberal groups such as the NAACP, which had sided with the property owners
in the case.

He protested that urban renewal has historically resulted in displacement of
minorities, the elderly and the poor.

"Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to
exacerbate these effects," he wrote.

The case is Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108.
Staff writer Kirstin Downey contributed to this report.