|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The People News, a free newspaper serving Cleveland Tennessee (TN) and Bradley County Tennessee (Tn).
Of Bradley County Tn.
JULY 2005
The People News, a free newspaper serving Cleveland and Bradley County Tn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feature Writers
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
|
|
BACK ISSUE ARCHIVE
|
|
EDITORIALS
|
|
LETTERS
|
|
CONTACT US
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HEALTH
PUBLIC SQUARE
JENNIFER'S CORNER
SPECIAL REPORT
TN. MOCKINGBIRD
CAR TALK
A PERSONAL VIEW
REALM OF REALITY
COLUMNIST
TECHNOLOGY
SPORTS
COLUMNIST
MATTER OF FAITH
FEED BAG
WW II SECRETS
READ ALL ABOUT IT
GUEST COLUMNIST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property Rights Removed
U.S. Supreme Court rules that local governments
can use eminent domain to aid developers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Pete Edwards
In what some are describing as a premeditated assault on constitutional property
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rights the US Supreme Court recently ruled that local governments have the authority to forcibly take private property and give it to another private entity under the existing interpretation of eminent domain. As a result of the June 23, 5-4 narrow majority ruling, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate more tax revenue.
Writing for the court's majority, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said, "local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
residents are overly burdened."
Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - Justice David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer and centrist conservative, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The Supreme Court's intervention was a result of several homeowners in a working-class neighborhood of New London, Connecticut, filing suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a river-front hotel, health club and offices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It has been a growing trend for local governments across the nation to seize private property even though it was not blighted and hand it over to developers who claim they can provide jobs and increased tax revenue. Governments contend that this kind of takings is justified because it is in the pubic good. Historically, eminent domain has been limited for public use projects such as roads, schools and public buildings but now private property can be taken for any purpose.
As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling, private property owners have no recourse in law and their homes and businesses can be forcibly seized for any reason local government officials see fit, even if the owners and community object.
In her dissenting argument Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
O'Conner was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Do You Think?
SURVEY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you believe that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding the taking of private property by eminent domain to increase tax revenue will be abused by local governments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Tennessee, Municipal governments cannot use eminent domain proceedings to acquire land in the county without county government approval but they can now force people from their homes to satisfy the wishes of a developer. If Cleveland officials could be persuaded by a local developer that an area of town could produce more tax revenue by changing its use from residential, church or small business, city officials could force people out and bring in the wrecking ball. The same is true for county governments.
Although taking private property is politically unpopular, local officials have been known to ignore public sentiment.
In Cleveland, it has been suggested that families be evicted from their property to make way for an airport that the community doesn't support. With the new power of this Supreme Court ruling, homes and businesses in the downtown area could also be forcibly razed to accommodate a local developer's dream of a revitalized downtown. Although the condemning of property has not been discussed the idea of revitalization is already gaining momentum, and is supported by many local officials and private entities including Cleveland Mayor Tom Rowland, County Mayor (Executive) D. Gary Davis, the Cleveland Bradley Chamber of Commerce, Mainstreet Cleveland and developer Allan [Alan] Jones, of Jones Management, Cleveland.
New London government was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![]()
|
|
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The People News
PO Box 3921
Cleveland TN. 37320
(423) 559-2150 Fax 559-1044
Editor-Publisher, Pete Edwards
Copyright 2005 (All rights reserved)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
|
|
BACK ISSUE ARCHIVE
|
|
EDITORIALS
|
|
LETTERS
|
|
CONTACT US
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|