Thread: Cities, Homeowners Clash Over Land Rights

http://www.newsday.com

Cities, Homeowners Clash Over Land Rights



By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

June 25, 2005, 3:02 PM EDT

NEW LONDON, Conn. -- When a divided Supreme Court broadened the government's right to seize private property this past week, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor painted a grim portrait of what she saw coming.

She said wealthy investors and city leaders had been given the power to run people from their homes to make way for new development. The line between public and private property has been blurred, O'Connor said in her dissent, and no home is safe.


advertisement




advertisement

While municipal leaders say O'Connor's view is unrealistic, people who have fought eminent domain say it's already here.

"Now that they've got carte blanche to do whatever they want, they will," said Dick Saha, 75, who in May won a six-year fight to keep Coatesville, Pa., from seizing his farm.

"We have four horses. My two daughters have some land we gave them and the grandkids come down and ride the horses," Saha said. The town, he said, "decided they needed our property for a golf course."

Governments have historically used their eminent domain authority to build public projects such as roads, courthouses and reservoirs, but that power has gradually expanded as cities have used it to eliminate blight.

On Thursday, the high court ruled that New London could raze a residential neighborhood and replace it with hotels and offices that officials say could add millions of dollars to the tax base.

Municipal and development officials say they're being unfairly cast as greedy land grabbers. Taking property isn't pleasant, they say, but sometimes it is the only way to spur development in cities struggling to pay bills.

"The only way we can stay alive is to grow and revitalize," said Richard Monteilh, city administrator in Newark, N.J.

In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

O'Connor, however, warned that the decision makes it easier for the rich to seize property from the poor.

That's what George Mytrowitz believes he's facing in Newark, where officials want to build 2,000 condominium units and retail space on 14 acres. City officials say the Mulberry Street area is blighted and should be demolished.

"The developers said 'We want it. Let's blight it and we'll figure out what to do with it after,'" said Mytrowitz, whose family's auto shop has been in Newark since 1913.

After Newark's Municipal Council initially voted against the plan in 2003, developers donated thousands of dollars to city campaigns, according to New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission records. Eight months later, the council voted to reverse its decision.

In New London, the seven families who resisted losing their property asked to be incorporated in the development, but city officials said the old houses didn't fit in their plans.

Archie Brooks, a city councilor in Des Moines, Iowa, sympathizes, to a point. His city is trying to build a high-tech office park, but auto salvage shops stand in the way. Some are haggling over money, he said, but some want to stay.

"If I went and asked you to relocate your company to Des Moines, spend a few million dollars, do you want to be next to a junkyard?" Brooks said.

Baltimore used eminent domain to build its Inner Harbor. New York used it to revitalize Times Square. Both cities filed briefs with the Supreme Court in the New London case, urging them not to curtail that power.

Still, eminent domain is a risky political move, said the International Economic Development Council, a Washington-based nonprofit group.

"This is a last resort," said Jeffrey Finkle, the group's president. "I can't imagine that this Supreme Court ruling will all of a sudden cause every city council member to risk alienating their constituents by rampantly doing eminent domain."

We are slowly losing all of our freedoms one by one.

I think we should federal eminent domain and condemn UNOCAL, MAYTAG, and LENOVA (IBM PC)?

You know....for economic development purposes? You know to expand the American Tax Base? Why let all those profits go to China and threaten our energy resources, national security, technological assets, and manufacturing job base?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it??

IN FACT, why don't we just use this GLOBALIST ACTION against them and buy all their companies....you know for whatever "we think" is "fair market"???

I've been thinking about this for awhile. Nations have the right to nationalize companies and we have that right here in the United States should we wish to do it. We have the right to prevent what is going on by purchasing these organizations. In fact, one could argue that this is the BEST WAY to compete on a global basis with China who owns all its businesses.



Then, when this crisis is over and all these companies have been cleansed of their liars, cheaters, thieves, lawbreakers, crooks, embezzlers, and "sicko-wackos", then we can put them back on the free AMERICAN market...one day....should we ever want to.

After all....this is the United States.

WE are the Americans.

WE not only decide what happens here,

WE CONTROL what happens here.

Whaddya all think about THAT!!

We can fire all those overpaid execs, eliminate corporate income tax, and just use ALL THE PROFIT to pay off our national debt!!

Everyone would have job, great jobs...and none of them could be outsourced!

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this US SUPREME COURT DECISION just gave us all the right to do just THAT!!!