« Moon time |
Main
| High court nominee: breadcrumb trail »
July 20, 2005
Lawyers petition high court to rehear New London eminent domain case
"Homeowners Ask U.S. Supreme Court: Rehear Eminent Domain Case" reads the press release at the site of the Institute for Justice, the nonprofit "libertarian public interest law firm" that represented New London, Conn., homeowners in the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case. June 23 the court ruled 5-4 against the homeowners, permitting the city to replace a residential neighborhood with a waterfront conference hotel, a pedestrian “riverwalk,” restaurants, stores, office space and at least 80 upscale condos.
Monday, the lawyers filed a petition for a rehearing:
As the petition points out as the first basis for the rehearing, the floodgates to eminent domain abuse have already begun to swing open. “Justice O’Connor predicted a world in which a Motel 6 can be taken for a Ritz-Carlton, and homes for a shopping mall,” said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute and co-counsel in the Kelo case. “The majority wrongly dismissed these as hypotheticals when in fact such takings are already occurring throughout the country.”
Among many other examples of lower-tax producing businesses being taken for higher-tax producing ones just since the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Institute for Justice cited:
* Hours after the Kelo decision, officials in Freeport, Texas, began legal filings to seize two family-owned seafood companies to make way for a more upscale business: an $8 million private boat marina.
* Homes are already being taken for shopping malls. On July 12, 2005, Sunset Hills, Mo., voted to allow the condemnation of 85 homes and small businesses. This is the first step in allowing the private Novus Development Corp. to use eminent domain against the property owners to build a planned $165 million shopping center and office complex. Also in Missouri, the City of Arnold plans to take 30 homes and 15 small businesses, including the Arnold Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) post, for a Lowe’s and a strip mall....
Short of actually rehearing the entire case, the property owners ask the Court as the second basis for the rehearing to at the very least “vacate” the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court and allow more evidence to be submitted about the takings in this case. The Court announced new standards in the use of eminent domain for economic development in Kelo and four years have passed since the trial in the case. Petitioners ask the Supreme Court to allow for reexamination of facts in the trial court in light of the new standards it announced.
The lawyers have also begun a "Hands Off My Home" campaign at their Castle Coalition political action site.
Homeowners of all stripes have found common ground around this case, although some conservatives point to the ruling as the work of "activist judges" and some liberals claim it as evidence that the court favors big business over individual homeowners.
Stay tuned.
(The New London Day has reported all this, but behind the registration wall, so it got little play outside WorldNet Daily and GlobeSt.com, a real estate site.)
Posted by Sheila Lennon 
at 5:25 PM | Permalink
A day after the Kelo decision was delivered, Freestar Media LLC submitted a proposal in the town of Weare, New Hampshire where majority opinion writer, Justice Souter, owns a farm house. They requested that the town board condemn the land and give it to them, as private developers, who promise to construct the Lost Liberty Hotel in its place. Their tax revenue would no doubt be higher than the reported $2,500 that Justice Souter paid in property taxes last year. It would create employment and attract tourism. The town has a website, and an economic development committee, which has identified its two main goals: 1) Encourage the formation of new businesses, and 2) Promote tourism. However, contrary to its stated goals and the legally sanctioned purpose of economic development, the towns board turned down the proposal.
So much for poetic justice. Justice Souters influence in his community shielded him from his own ruling. No other rational justification can be found.
Thankfully, the legislative branch is now busy at work attempting to shield private property rights from the Supreme Court ruling. It seems that the two may have switched roles, with the House defending the Constitution, and the Supreme Court writing new laws.
I thought I saw Alice the other day! Or maybe it was Justice Souter skipping in Wonderland, immune to and above the laws he passes.
Posted by: Kira Zalan on July 26, 2005 2:15 PM
