High court OKs personal property seizures

[Strang, Lee]

That's right.  Michigan, in Wayne v. Hathcock, 684 N.W.2d 765 (2004), ruled that a development project very similar to the one at issue in Kelo  violated the Michigan Constitution's public use clause.  The Michigan Supreme Court relied on the original meaning of Michigan's takings clause  to rule that public use includes three categories of public action: "public necessity of the extreme sort otherwise impracticable," such as highways; where the "the private entity remains accountable to the public in its use of that property"; and where there are "facts of independent public significance," such as slum clearance. 

Lee Strang

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of
sghosh2 at buffalo.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:45 AM
To: Dr. J. Michael Bitzer
Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: High court OKs personal property seizures


My quick read is that the Court held that economic development goals 
constitute a public use under the Takings Clause even if the state 
takes from A to give to B.  Justice O'Connor would draw the line on 
Midkiff (an opinion she authored) at property transfers from one group 
of citizens to another.

I guess state courts will see more activity on this issue.  Michigan 
overruled Poletown a few years, I think, under the Michigan 
constitution.  

Quoting "Dr. J. Michael Bitzer" <jmbitzer at catawba.edu>:

> The USSC just issued its ruling on the local govt eminent domain
> case.  So does this basically allow local govts cart blanche to
> declare anything for "public use"?  
>   
> High court OKs personal property seizures 
> Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities 
>   
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local
> governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against
> their will -- for private economic development. 
>   
> It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with
> many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban
> areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property
> ownership rights. 
>   
> The 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 have wide power to bulldoze residences for
> projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax
> revenue. 
>   
> Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a
> development project will benefit the community, justices said. 
>   
> "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it
> believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community,
> including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax
> revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. 
>   
> He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader
> Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. 
>   
> At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows
> governments to take private property through eminent domain if the
> land is for "public use." 
>   
> Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class
> neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city
> officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel,
> health club and offices. 
>   
> New London officials countered that the private development plans
> served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed
> the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted. 
>   
> Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many
> cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that
> cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even
> if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy
> developers. 
>   
> The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a
> taking only if it eliminates blight. 
>   
> "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private
> party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,"
> O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens
> with disproportionate influence and power in the political process,
> including large corporations and development firms." 
>   
> She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist,
> as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. 
>   
> Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. 
> 
> ==================================== 
> "The liberally educated person is one who is able to resist the easy
> and preferred answers, not because he is obstinate but because he
> knows others worthy of consideration." 
> Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (1987) 
>   
> J. Michael Bitzer, Ph.D. 
> Assistant Professor of Political Science 
> Catawba College 
> 2300 W. Innes Street 
> Salisbury, NC 28144 
> Office Phone: 704.637.4117 
> faculty.catawba.edu/jmbitzer/index.html 
> 
>   
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.