Thursday, June 23, 2005

We’ve Been Seized!

The vote has been cast… the ruling made.

The Supreme Court officially ruled today that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses for private development, even against a home owner’s will.

The practice of eminent domain is actually quite common in several states. The Fifth Amendment allows governments to take private property for public use; however, the owner must be justly compensated for their property. Properties that are traditionally taken through eminent domain are those where roads, bridges, or public buildings are needed.

In the case of Kelo vs. New London, the Supreme Court ruling has basically allowed the local government to slate homes for destruction for the benefit of another party. In this particular case, residents living in the neighborhood of New London, Connecticut filed suit due to their local government announcing eminent domain of their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. This decision by the government is meant to create more job opportunities in the New London community.

Is this fair? There are two ways to look at it. One view being, that people are being uprooted from their homes, simply to accommodate a wealthier higher power. The other view being that removing a handful of people in order to create community wide employment opportunities helps more families in need of jobs as well as spurs other economic development.

My theory here is to buy smart. So many people buy their homes smack in the middle of an empty field or near a developing area….not always the smartest decision. Sooner or later a development will be in that empty field, or the hospital that’s several hundred yards away today, they might want to add another wing right up to your back yard.

What’s your opinion?

1 Comments:

Blogger torporindy said...

I think it's an absolutely terrible decision. It's not often that I find myself agreeing with Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia and now I have twice within the past two weeks(medical marijuana was the other decision).

Justice O'Connor summed up the danger of this decision best.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

10:13 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home