Eminent Domain Round Up
If New London can seize people’s homes so private developers can build a hotel and convention center, what will cities do next? several Supreme Court justices asked during arguments Tuesday.
Can a city decide to get rid of the Motel 6 and put up a Ritz-Carlton, asked Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, because the luxury hotel would produce more taxes?
“That would be OK?” she asked.
“Are we saying you can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia.
The Indiana House voted Tuesday to make it more costly for government to condemn private property for the sake of commercial development, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that could lead to even more restrictions.
Supporters of House Bill 1063 complained that the wants of developers have trumped the rights of average citizens. They argued that eminent domain laws, which allow the government to buy property against the owners’ wishes, have strayed far from their original purpose of making it possible for roads and other necessities to be built.
Erin Durkin says ED’s future is unsure.
In Utah, homes are scheduled to be bulldozed to make room for a Wal-Mart:
Residents of a tucked-away downtown neighborhood and other Ogden residents angry at City Hall rallied Monday to protest a plan to bulldoze homes and businesses for a new Wal-Mart superstore.
At the peak of the rally, more than 40 carried signs showing a slash mark through the words “eminent domain abuse” and calling for reform of redevelopment laws. Passers-by honked and flashed protesters thumbs-up signs.
“Something is wrong with this picture,” said protester Bill Glassman, an Ogden real estate broker and investor. “Do not take homes and viable businesses away and give [the land] to a big company!”
February 24th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
It may not help you, but in my home state (WA) the state Supremes, who on occasion exhibit common sense, have said Kelo-style ED is illegal.