Right Side of the Rainbow

Supreme Court hands down Kelo decision -- homeowners lose:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.

Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

UPDATE -- The Court's opinion, by Justice John Paul Stevens, is here; Justice O'Connor's dissent is here.

More later.

UPDATE II -- Reaction:

The Supreme Court has rendered its verdict in Kelo v. New London, and the widely-expected result has come to pass: a 5-4 loss for property rights. As Raich taught us that growing pot in your backyard for personal consumption is "interstate commerce," Kelo informs us that taking people's homes to hand over to private developers building an office complex is a "public use."

You do wonder: Now that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients, and with a plan to rob people of their homes for the benefit of wealthy developers, will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence? (Julian Sanchez at Hit & Run)

Under the headline "Court Appointments Matter," DJ Drummond at Polipundit writes:

Because the United States Supreme Court has just decided that your city council can throw you off your own land, in order to accomodate luxury hotels and exclusive clubs.

Do not ever, ever, vote for a liberal Democrat or fake Republican again. Your home may depend on it.

Note, however, that the fifth -- and decisive -- vote in this case came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Surely DJ would not assert that President Reagan was a "fake Republican."

Note also that while the Kelo Court would indeed permit a city to take your land for luxury hotels and exclusive clubs, that wasn't all to the case here. Rather, as Justice Thomas noted in dissent, Kelo is "a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation ..." Bend over, bitches. Corporate America is going to bang you some more. (EDITED: bold words added, for clarity.)

A while back, I had a post, "George Bush, liberal darling" stating that liberals should like George Bush for his vast expansion of federal spending. I received many outraged emails, and many links from outraged liberal bloggers, protesting that liberals don't like Big Government for its own sake, but rather support using the institution of government for wise, liberal ends. I accept that that these protestations were sincere. But consider the lineup in Raich and Kelo. Then consider the legal gymnastics it takes to consider local medical pot part of "interstate commerce," and to consider taking people's home and giving them to Pfizer a "public use" in the face of two hundred years of precedent that A to B transfers are illegitimate; and the fact that "liberal ends" were certainly not involved in Raich, nor in Kelo (see Justice Thomas's dissent); and consider that the liberal Justices are not exactly shy about invalidating laws when it strikes their fancy. I think a good argument can be made that the more liberal Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court do indeed support Big Government for its own sake. (David Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy)

The localities are still required to pay "a just price" when one of these takings occurs, but the price even a willing seller would be able to get from his property just took a huge hit. All a developer has to do now is make a lowball offer and threaten to involve a bought-and-paid-for politician to take the property away if the owner doesn't acquiesce. (Will Collier at Vodkapundit)

So much for private property rights. Kennedy and Souter voted with the majority, proving once again just how essential it is that Bush pick somebody reliably - and permanently - conservative when there's an opening. (Professor Bainbridge)

This is breeding ground for a revolution. (Blogs of War)

Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me?! Is there any locale in the entire US where a county wouldn't receive more revenue from a shopping center or store than from property taxes?

Fuck these money-grubbing elected officials who sanction activity such as this, and fuck everyone who says "It's okay". It's NOT okay. (Physics Geek)

You and I no longer own homes. We occupy them. We pay the bank every month for the privilege of living there as long as the government wants to let us.

In the ruling handed down today, the court ruled that the town of New London, CT could exercise eminent domain and take homes and business from citizens and turn the land over to private developers to build a river-front hotel, a health club and offices.

The Court has ruled that "economic development" qualifies as a public use. Economic development for who? For the homeowner who has worked and paid the mortgage month after month? Or for the developer who gets property he couldn't get on the open market because the owners didn't want to sell their homes?

What is to stop a developer from telling the city that if they take your home and give it to them, they can increase its economic value to the city. Not your right to your property. You no longer have that. (Stephen Macklin at Hold the Mayo)

Everyone and their brother is blogging about this abomination, Kelo v. City of New London (2005).

[...]

If you aren't a property owner, consider this analogy: you believe that you labor is worth $10 per hour. You aren't prepared to work for less. A corporation decides that your labor is essential to what they are doing, but they aren't prepared to pay you $10 per hour--so they have the government draft you, and pay you a private's wages--and assign you to work for that corporation, arguing that the corporation's products would enhance the overall economy. You would properly recognize that you had been enslaved.

[...]

Here the liberals had a pretty clear example of a too cozy relationship between corporations with political influence and a local government. Rather than recognize and deplore the sleazy history of the precedents on this, and take the side of the individual against a wealthy and well-connected corporation, the liberals chose to violate the original intent of the Fifth Amendment, so as to preserve governmental power. (Clayton Cramer)