A house is not a home
If you were thinking of buying a house, this should give you pause. From the AP article:
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.
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 now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
A. Rabbit Said,
June 24, 2005 @ 3:31 pm
I’m willing to bet that another case will come before the SC before too long on this issue. I also think there is enough wiggle room in the laws that while this sounds like a landmark case, there will be plenty of lawyers on both sides who will successfully navigate a loophole or three.
Electro Rock Said,
June 24, 2005 @ 5:18 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t this been the standard already? The court case was simply affirming an existing local rule, was it not?
Boxen Said,
June 24, 2005 @ 5:58 pm
ER, Sort of. The past interpretation of US constitution required that the seizing property would be for “public use”. Now that restriction has been relaxed to “public benefit”. This allows states with less restrictive constitutions use the law in a way that they weren’t able to before because the US constitution, with its former tighter restriction, trumped them.
danger Said,
June 26, 2005 @ 9:09 pm
FSBO 3-BR S/L Ranch; Unfnshd bsment; 2.5 BA; Nwr roof; deck; corner lot; ass-tree in frnt yrd; walk to blighted areas; Must see!