Lawmakers call for moratorium on eminent domain, study

By SUSAN HAIGH
Associated Press Writer

July 12, 2005, 2:10 AM EDT

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Democratic leaders of the General Assembly on Monday
urged municipal leaders not to use their eminent domain powers until
the legislature has time to consider changing the state's laws on seizing
property.

The state lawmakers said they want time to thoroughly examine the issue
in the wake of last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found New
London had the authority to takes homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood
for a private development project.

In its ruling, the high court pointed out that states could ban that
practice.

"Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, it makes sense to take a full
comprehensive look of where we want to go as a state on eminent domain,"
said House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford.

Two legislative committees plan to hold a public hearing as early as
this month, inviting national experts and state and local government
officials to testify. Lawmakers would then decide whether to hold a special
session, or wait to address the issue during next year's General
Assembly.

Democratic legislators said they expect to make some changes in
Connecticut law. Eminent domain powers are referenced in 80 state statutes,
according to the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Research.

The Democratic leaders of the General Assembly have sent a letter to
mayors and first selectmen across the state urging them wait for
legislative guidance before seizing any property.

"It's putting the word out there to the municipalities that we're going
to act," said House Majority Leader Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden.

House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, is pushing for a
special session this summer to consider a one-year moratorium on the use
of eminent domain powers. Ward said he has been contacted by property
owners from across the nation, concerned about the high court's ruling.

"This is a very simple issue: you're either with the big developer and
big government, and against the little guy, or you're for the little
guy," Ward said. "I'm for the little guy and that's why we need to change
our law now."

Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca, R-Woodbury, called the Democrats'
plan to study the issue a "toothless moratorium," and an attempt to
save political face.

"It's clear that the Democrats are more interested in authorship than
in protecting people from having their homes seized," he said in a
written statement.

Bill Von Winkle, one of the New London residents whose home is being
seized, said he supports the idea of a one-year moratorium.

"Then, after a year, they'll be the ones deciding whether to put us in
street, not the Supreme Court," he said.

Milford officials did not wait for the state to take action. Aldermen
voted unanimously Monday night to prohibit the city from using eminent
domain to take property for private development.

"We recognize that there are legitimate reasons for eminent domain,"
Milford Mayor James L. Richetelli Jr. said. "But they have to be very
specific, and they have to be for a real municipal purpose. Economic
development just goes too far."

At least eight states _ Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine,
Montana, South Carolina and Washington _ already forbid eminent domain
for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight.

"Now every state is left to go back and consider their own laws," said
Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the legislature's
Judiciary Committee.

Lawlor said the General Assembly could pass a law that would prevent
the city of New London from taking the homes in Fort Trumbull. But, he
said lawmakers still need to study the issue.

Republicans proposed legislation that failed during this year's regular
and special sessions that would have limited the reach of eminent
domain.

Ward is now collecting co-sponsors for a bill that would ban eminent
domain for economic development projects.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, said she supports Ward's call for a
special session. But she also backed the Democrats' plans for a public
hearing and their request to municipalities that they forestall any
eminent domain plans.

"When government intrudes on our homes, it must have a defensible
reason. In the New London case, the reason was not defensible," Rell said in
a written statement.

The project to redevelop New London's waterfront has received tens of
millions of dollars in state funding over the years.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct-xgr--seizingproper0712jul11,0,6047853.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut

Plaintiff attorneys seek close to $900,000 in fees from San Jose

Published: July 6, 2005
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journals
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for property owners who successfully sued the City of San Jose in a redevelopment case filed for payment of $866,997.76 in legal fees July 1 in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The motion stems from a nearly three-year legal battle between downtown
property owner Gross & Holmes Properties, LLC and the city and its Redevelopment Agency (RDA).

The RDA sought to declare 30 acres of downtown property "blighted" in order to include it in a redevelopment zone. The designation would have allowed the city to condemn the property. But Superior Court Judge Joseph Huber ruled in April that the city and RDA had provided insufficient proof that the Gross & Holmes-owned property could be declared blighted.

The city declined to appeal the judge's ruling and has now been served with a bill for the plaintiff's legal expenses from the San Jose law firm of Brooks & Hess, APC.

http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/07/04/daily9.html

City forces out 2 downtown businesses

- Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, July 2, 2005

Last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling approving a Connecticut city's plan to take private land by eminent domain may seem far away.

But to John Revelli, whose family has operated a tire shop near downtown Oakland for decades, the implications hit home on Friday.

A team of contractors hired by the city of Oakland packed the contents of his small auto shop in a moving van and evicted Revelli from the property his family has owned since 1949.

"I have the perfect location; my customers who work downtown can drop off their cars and walk back here," said Revelli, 65, pointing at the nearby high- rises. "The city is taking it all away from me to give someone else. It's not fair."

The city of Oakland, using eminent domain, seized Revelli Tire and the adjacent property, owner-operated Autohouse, on 20th Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues on Friday and evicted the longtime property owners, who have refused to sell to clear the way for a large housing development.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last week paved the way for local governments to buy out unwilling property owners, demolish homes and businesses, and turn that land over to new owners for development. Last week's ruling expanded on earlier decisions that allowed agencies to take property only if it is considered "blighted" or run-down.

"The city thinks I cause 'economic blight' because I don't produce enough tax revenue,'' Revelli said. "We thought we'd win, but the Supreme Court took away my last chance."

The two properties, which total 6,500 square feet, were being forced to move or sell because their businesses are on a larger section of land that is slated for the Uptown Project, a city-subsidized real estate development that is expected to include nearly 1,200 apartments and condominiums.

The project's wedge-shaped lot, just west of the 19th Street BART Station, includes several blocks roughly bounded by 20th Street, 17th Street, Telegraph Avenue and San Pablo Avenue.

Both Revelli Tire and Autohouse, owned and operated by Tony Fung, are on the northern edge of the project in the 400 block of 20th Street, which is also called Thomas L. Berkley Way.

The eviction came as no surprise to Revelli and Fung. The city has designated their block as a redevelopment area for about 20 years. Before approving the Uptown Project last year, the city considered putting in a shopping mall, then an arena for the Golden State Warriors and later a ballpark for the Oakland Athletics.

The decision to build market-rate housing on the site, subsidized by $61 million in city redevelopment funds, is the keystone in Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to revitalize downtown Oakland by putting in homes for 10,000 new residents there.

"This is the part of redevelopment everyone hates," said Hamid Gami, who is coordinating the relocation for Oakland's Community and Economic Development Agency.

"It's tough. They're good people. We've offered them fair compensation, and we hope to come to an agreement. But this is a really important new development. The city has been trying to do this for years. It's good for all of Oakland. It's going to be a great project."

Gami said he hopes to work out a settlement with Revelli and Fung.

The business owners said they clung to hopes that the eminent domain decision might be overturned in court or that they could persuade the city to build the project and leave them alone.

"All those new residents will need someone to work on their cars," said Revelli, who has been working in the shop since he was in third grade helping his dad and uncle. "I don't want their money. I don't want to move. I just want to work right here."

Most of the other businesses closed their doors and left in the past two years. The only other holdout, Chef Edward's Barbeque, is expected to reopen about a block and a half away.

Fung and Revelli said the money offered by the city, about $100 per square foot plus relocation costs, was insufficient, saying the real estate boom has priced them out of nearby properties. They own their properties outright and have operated with low overhead.

"John works alone; I have one technician working with me -- that's it, '' said Fung, who bought his 2,500-square-foot shop in 1993. "The cost of buying or leasing a new site is prohibitive. The money the city offered me does not cover it."

Revelli, who has worked alone for the past 35 years, said no other location is as good as what he is losing.

"My customers are mainly women who work in the offices downtown. They can take BART if they have to leave their cars overnight," Revelli said. "There's really no equivalent location around here."

Both men said Friday that losing their businesses was like losing a piece of themselves.

"I've worked here full time since 1959, and I looked forward to coming to work every day," Revelli said. "I'm not ready to retire, but the city forced me into this. I don't have many options."

Fung, who is in his late 40s and raising his children, said retirement is not an option.

"I'm an immigrant from China, and this has been the fulfillment of my American dream," Fung said. "I worked hard. I played by the rules. But now it's all gone. I've got to start all over."

http://www.sfgate.com

Plan to link housing to transit funding

Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, July 9, 2005

The days may be numbered for BART extensions down freeway medians, commuter rail depots surrounded by warehouses, and ferry terminals on desolate waterfronts.

Bay Area transportation officials are poised to adopt a groundbreaking policy that would bring life -- and housing -- to neighborhoods that would rise along new transit lines.

"We're going to get out of the Eisenhower era and into the 21st century, '' said Stuart Cohen, executive director of the Transportation and Land Use Coalition, a group that has long advocated a connection between development and funding transit projects.

The policy, endorsed Friday by a committee of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, would require cities and counties to zone areas surrounding new transit stations and extensions for dense housing development in order to collect transportation funding. The policy would also reward cities for including affordable housing in developments near transit centers. And it would offer money to cities to help pay for the necessary planning.

The commission, the region's transportation planning and funding agency, is scheduled to give final approval to the policy at its July 27 meeting.

While environmental, housing and transit advocacy groups are enthusiastic, officials in some cities are fearful they will have to surrender local control.

But at Friday's meeting, virtually everyone, including some city officials who formerly opposed the policy, lent their support.

The policy says new transit projects won't be funded unless cities plan for dense residential development nearby -- including transit villages with housing, shops and restaurants, and services such as child care and dry cleaning.

"The goal of the policy is to get more people on transit and reduce subsidies (paid to transit operators),'' said James Corless, a senior planner for the commission and coordinator of the policy. "Our research shows that the closer people live to transit, the more likely they are to take it.''

Cohen said the Bay Area has rarely considered the connection between transit and land use.

"When transit lines are surrounded by a sea of parking lots of big box stores, people wonder why transit is empty,'' he said. "Housing is the key to making transit work. More homes mean more riders. And more riders make the transit system more efficient.''

The policy would require planning and zoning for a certain density of housing along each new transit line and around each of its stations. While that has concerned some city officials, Corless said others have been swayed by the success of transit villages elsewhere.

"They're not going to create a downtown San Francisco in Antioch, and we never wanted them to," Corless said. "But they could create something that is uniquely Antioch.''

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/09/BAGKNDKS241.DTL&hw=metropolitan+Transportation+committee&sn=001&sc=1000

For more information visit the MTC website

Freedom's Oxygen

By Assemblyman Ray Haynes
July 5, 2005

We all know we need food, water, and sleep to survive. We know what they are. We can see them, touch them, and experience them everyday. We also need oxygen. Without it, we would die, yet we can't see it (except perhaps in Los Angeles). We know it is there, somehow, but we don't know exactly what it is. We certainly don't want to lose it.

Freedom - true political freedom, as it was meant to exist, and as it was designed by our founding fathers, has certain requirements to survive, live and thrive as well. Freedoms of the press, of speech, of association, and of religion are all easy to see and define. There is, however, one right that is the oxygen of freedom, one without which freedom of speech, press, and religion cannot exist. Yet, this last week, the Supreme Court polluted this right---the right to own and control property, to the point that it may choke off freedom in this country.

Usually, when someone wants to buy your property, they have to meet your price to get it from you. Eminent domain, however, allows a government to take your property for a 'public use.' The government determines the price, and then forcibly takes your land from you. When a 'public use' involves taking a home that stands in the way of a new freeway that is critical to the region, it can be a necessary evil. In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court held that the 'public use' section of the eminent domain language could mean anything that the majority of the elected officials of a government body wants it to mean. In Kelo, the government took someone's land, and then handed it over to a developer to build a hotel; the alleged 'public use' was the increase in tax revenue to the city. The city claimed it was appropriate because they paid 'fair market value' for the land.

This is a frightening expansion of eminent domain. There have already been previous efforts to condemn properties to build a Costco or other warehouse-type store. And don't think it can't happen to you! While the standard used to be a necessary public use, or that the property was blighted, they now only have to show that the new use will be more beneficial than the old use. In a system that depends on sales taxes or higher property taxes, your home or farm will never be as valuable to them as it is to you. Nearly any commercial use is more beneficial to local governments than any residential use.

This is a corruption of the concept of private property, and the beginning of the end of freedom.

Nowsome people will say hogwashprivate property rights have nothing to do with political freedom. But think about it. Of what value is the freedom of speech or press if you are afraid some government official will take your property if you speak upif that government official can bankrupt you for exercising your rights? If you go bankrupt in the defense of freedom, you still have to explain to your children why there is no food on the table. To prove this point, ask this question, how many developers will criticize a city councilperson or a county supervisor? Very few. Why? Because those government officials hold the fate of the developers' business in their hands, and, if the developer is afraid to criticize an elected government official (or even oppose them in an election) of what value is the freedom of speech?

That is why property rights are as critical to freedom as oxygen is to our life. After Kelo, any majority (three people in most cities and counties) of elected officials can take your home for criticizing them, if they can come up with a good reason for doing it. If they don't like your neighbor, they can take your home for going over there for a bar-b-que! That is a powerful incentive for most people to just shut up or avoid their neighbors. Of what value is freedom of speech and association if elected officials can act in that fashion?

You may say that such a thing would never happen here - but, under Kelo, it can, and if it can, trust me, it will. In Communist China, it happens everyday. I have had something very similar happen to me. We are dangerously close to losing our very precious freedoms because the Supreme Court just undermine the most fundamental right - the right to own and control property.

Silicon Valley assessed value jumps nearly 8 percent in 2004

Sharon Simonson
Published: July 5, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------
The taxable value of real estate and business equipment in Silicon Valley increased a respectable 7.99 percent in 2004 to a total of $240.14 billion, after three years of far more tepid growth reflecting the region's struggling economy.

Most of the increase reflects rising taxable value associated with new-home construction and property sales, said Larry Stone, Santa Clara County assessor.

"Silicon Valley's resiliency and speed of recovery is quite remarkable," Mr. Stone said in a prepared statement accompanying the release of this year's tax roll total.

Local government, especially schools and redevelopment agencies, rely on property taxes to finance their operations.

The tax roll is intended to capture the aggregate value of all real estate and business equipment on Jan. 1 of each year, in this case, Jan. 1, 2005.

Commercial real estate, while showing some recovery, still struggles, Mr. Stone said. Nearly 1,500 commercial properties whose market values have fallen below their taxable values remain on the rolls at $9 billion below their previous assessment levels.

Under state law, the assessor is required to carry properties on the roll at their market value if the market value is less than their "factored-base-year" value, or their original market value plus annual increases of 2 percent or less.

Meanwhile, Santa Clara County technology companies have begun to re-invest in their equipment after three years of making due with existing equipment or simply closing up shop.

Unlike real property, so-called business personal property is re-valued every year to establish a market value and is taxed at that market rate. In the last three years, the value of business personal property in Santa Clara County had fallen 30 percent. This year, the value rose from last year's nadir by 4.34 percent to $19.27 billion.

Despite the overall turnaround in the value of business equipment and real estate, the county still harbors pockets of weakness. The San Jose Redevelopment Agency, which relies nearly entirely on property taxes to
finance its operations and service its debt, saw a less than 1 percent increase in its taxable value -- the smallest increase of any taxing jurisdiction countywide.

On the opposite end of the spectrum were Gilroy, which saw its taxable property values rise by 13.5 percent, and the Milpitas redevelopment agency, which saw its taxable value rise by more than 14.5 percent.
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/07/04/daily5.html

Nullification Nancy

By The Prowler
Published 7/5/2005 12:09:06 AM

SHINING BRIGHT
House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi is known amongst even her Democratic colleagues as one of the less cerebral members of the House. But even her staff was stunned by her seeming inability to understand the recent Kelo Supreme Court ruling regarding governmental property seizures.

"We briefed her on it. She seemed to ask questions as though she understood it, but clearly she didn't," says a Boxer adviser on Capitol Hill. "How else to explain it?"

Indeed. When asked about Kelo and its implications, as well as moves afoot by some Republicans in both houses to negate the ruling, perhaps by barring use of federal funds on projects that involved the state or local taking of land, Pelosi responded thusly:

"It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision."

Later, she insisted: "Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression."

"All I can say is wow," says a Republican leadership staffer. "To say anything else would just undercut the impact her remarks have had up here."

Even after the press remarks, Pelosi, according to other Democratic staffers, didn't seem to understand what the fuss was all about. "She was oblivious. She really thought she had a handle on some basic ideas about the Supreme Court, the way Congress works with the rulings of the court," says a Democratic leadership staffer. "A generation of 'Schoolhouse Rock' gets this and she doesn't? Her staff should be ashamed of itself for putting her out there."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8391

This Land Was Your Land

High court's property decision stirs anger
Seen as 'slap in the face' to American homeowners

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 24, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Property-rights advocates condemned the Supreme Court's split decision yesterday allowing a local government to seize a home or business against the owner's will for the purpose of private development.

The 5-4 ruling went against the owners of New London, Conn., homes targeted for destruction to make room for an office complex.

The American Conservative Union, the nation's oldest and largest conservative grass-roots organization, noted many of the affected citizens have deep roots in their community, including a married couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

"It is outrageous to think that the government can take away your home any time it wants to build a shopping mall," said ACU Chairman David Keene. "[The] Supreme Court ruling is a slap in the face to property owners everywhere."

Keene believes "liberal, activist judges will continue to violate the rights of individuals in favor of big government and special interests."

"To help protect property rights, Americans must push for a fair, originalist judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court when the next vacancy arises," he said.

Susette Kelo was among several residents who sued the city after officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

"I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country," Kelso said. "I am very disappointed that the court sided with powerful government and business interests, but I will continue to fight to save my home and to preserve the Constitution."

The debate centered on the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Until now, that has been interpreted to mean projects such as roads, schools and urban renewal. But New London officials argued that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth, even though the area was not blighted.

"It's a dark day for American homeowners," said Dana Berliner, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the group of Connecticut residents in the case.

"While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most politically connected," Berliner said. "Every home, small business or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the court, that's a good enough reason for eminent domain."

California state Sen. Tom McClintock, who ran for governor against Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the Supreme Court "broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans' most fundamental rights."

"Their decision nullifies the Constitution's Public Use Clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain," he said. "The responsibility now falls on the various states to reassert and restore the property rights of their citizens."

McClintock announced he plans to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights.

"This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property," he said. "In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceases to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action."

Writing in dissent of yesterday's decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said cities shouldn't be allowed to uproot a family in order 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," 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."

O'Conner was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens 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."

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The American Family Association noted Justice Clarence Thomas' addition to O'Conner's dissent: "If such 'economic development' takings are for a 'public use,' any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution."

Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the AFA Center for Law & Policy, said America's founders "held that government was instituted to protect property as much as persons, but today's high court no longer respects private property."

"There is a world of difference between taking private property for a legitimate public use, such as the building of a road, and some private developer's get-rich-quick scheme," he said. "In effect, the Supreme Court has written over city hall: 'The government giveth, and the government taketh away.'"

Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, said both the majority and the dissent recognized that the action in this issue now turns to state supreme courts where the public-use battle will be fought out under state constitutions.

"Today's decision in no way binds those courts," he said.

Mellor said his group will work to ensure the property owners in New London keep their homes.

"This is a terrible precedent that must be overturned by this court, just as bad state supreme court eminent domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later overturned by those courts," he said.

Another homeowner in the case, Mike Cristofaro, has owned property New London for more than 30 years.

"I am astonished that the court would permit the government to throw out my family from their home so that private developers can make more money," he said. "Although the court ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we waged for my family and for the rights of all Americans."

The Institute for Justice says more than 10,000 private properties have been threatened or condemned in recent years.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44958

Black-robed Robin Hoods

Posted: June 27, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Barbara Simpson

Picture this: Ruth Bader Ginsberg wearing a snug, green outfit, complete with tights. Then picture four of her high-court compatriots, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer doing the same.

It's a tough visual, I admit, but given their property-rights ruling, we now know what those members of the U.S. Supreme Court must be wearing under their black robes.

Think "jolly, old England" and the fellow in the green outfit who stole from the rich to give to the poor. He didn't do it alone. Robin Hood had his band of merry men to help.

It wasn't legal, but it was such a nice thing to do and, after all, those nasty property-owning rich people just had too much. And that wasn't fair.

Apparently, it still isn't, and while the concept of "the state knows best for everyone" failed in fascist and communist hands – just ask the people in Russia who are only now learning what it's like to own private property – it appears that our top lawmakers decided it's worth a try for us.

Oh, I know the Supreme Court justices don't make law. Just read the Constitution and you'll know what their role is, and they don't make law.

Or, do they?

In fact, yes they do, and this activist court does. This gang of five handed down a ruling on June 23 that not only undermines the Constitution, it changes the way property is handled and regarded in our country.

Because of these five, it's now open season on private property anywhere and you are the target, whether you're rich or poor. It isn't about taking from the rich, it's about taking from anyone so someone else can get richer and the government can rake in big bucks in new taxes.

It was a 5-4 ruling in perhaps the most important property-rights case ever, Kelo v. City of New London. Justice Stevens wrote for the majority and was joined by Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy and Breyer.

Under their ruling, there's essentially no such thing as private property in the United States. World government advocates must be smiling.

These five justices have produced a land-use ruling that not only violates the Constitution, but also puts us on the fast track to fascism.

According to them, all the land in this country is essentially owned by the government – local, country, state or federal.

Oh, you can "buy" it, mortgage it, spend years of your life making payments on it, pay taxes on it, maintain and improve it, and yes, love it and share the most personal parts of your life in it. But ultimately, you don't own it because at any moment, for any whim, government at any level can force you out, bulldoze your home, take over every inch of "your" land property and give it to private ventures to develop for their own profit.

Nice deal if you can get it and our Supreme Court made it not only possible but legal, and according to them, constitutional.

Justice Stevens said they didn't "minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail" even though the owners would get "just compensation."

As though the full value of homes and land is just monetary. But now, it all comes down to the power of the state, the influence of developers, the greed of politicians and 30 pieces of silver thrown at powerless "owners."

Private property? Not anymore. Remember the date: Thursday, June 23, 2005. That's when those five Supreme Court justices ruled against 15 homeowners of New London, Conn., and for the city.

It means is that New London can condemn their property, take it under eminent domain and use the land for a private development: offices, a health club and a riverfront hotel – in essence, government taking private property and turning it over to private developers.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states clearly that private property can only be "taken" under eminent domain for public use: roads, bridges, public utilities, etc. which will benefit the public at large.

The kicker in this ruling is that the majority of the court has changed the meaning of "public use."

Shades of George Orwell!

Now, "public use" means "public benefit." In that light, it's a "public benefit" to build a commercial building in which people will work and a "public benefit" to put up expensive structures which will generate higher property and sales taxes for the government.

Let's face it, that riverfront hotel and office building will bring in more taxes than the homes of New London's residents, several of whom have lived in their homes for more than 50 years. How much would be "just compensation" for them, and who decides?

But they'll have no choice. Neither will any of the other owners in the largely low-income area. Some have said they'll simply refuse to leave. Then what?

Writing a stinging dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner so long as it might be upgraded." (Italics are mine.)

The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carleton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist joined her in her dissent.

And don't feel smug if you live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood. You're just as vulnerable and so are churches.

Under this ruling, communities can rezone your land for open space and your neighbor's property to create high density, in-fill housing – read that as apartments and condos. Better start packing.

If your land is rezoned under you because of the "public benefit" of more housing, businesses or green-space, and if politicians are lured by state and federal money, you, my friend, are on the road to condemnation.

This court ruling will change the face of this country, give unbridled power to politicians, put untold billions in the pockets of developers who demolish, build and move on, and ruin the lives of millions of people who believed they lived in a free country.

Some say we should amend the Constitution to make certain this isn't allowed. Think about it: They're suggesting we amend the Constitution to prevent what the Fifth Amendment already prevents.

Huh?

Our Founding Fathers must be turning in their graves. The real question is do we have what it takes to take back our Constitution from the maw of judicial socialism?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44994

MORRISON: The Unknown Government

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

By Joyce Morrison
OPINION - California is tagged as one of the most liberal states in the nation. What is done on the West coast will eventually find its way to the Midwest. Usually, we think in terms of “way-out trends” coming from California but there is a lot of common sense we can learn from the problems they have already encountered.

Orange County, California elected official Chris Norby, in his book Redevelopment: The Unknown Government, reveals a government that does not have to have public approval to attend to business. This 40 page book, first published in 1996 before Norby became a Supervisor in Orange County, has seen nearly 60,000 copies of this book distributed and each year an updated version is released.

Having 18 years experience as a City Councilman in Fullerton, CA, Norby knows first hand the problems development bring to the taxpayers and the community. This book, sponsored by Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform, should be required reading for every official in every state. Redevelopment: The Unknown Government can be read on line at: http://www.redevelopment.com.

If Californians are fed up with property taxes and TIF districts, corporate welfare, expenditures and indebtedness, eminent domain, housing and all that goes with the redevelopment establishment, how long will it take other states to wake up to the scams used in the development circles.

Who really profits from eminent domain seizures and TIF Districts?

It is time we began to get our thinking straight. Our tax dollars were never meant to be dumped into private ventures such as development. Our tax dollars were meant to provide needs for the public such as schools, libraries, fire districts, police and other civic services.

Below is one of the many illustrations you will find in the book. The kid, who is one of the “city fathers,” is no match for the guy trained to give the sales pitch. This guy could sell ice cubes to Eskimos and the kid thinks he is in a candy store.

Following the disturbing Supreme Court ruling last week in Kelo vs. City of New London, Connecticut, which gave the right of rich development over homeowners, it is time to find out what is behind all of the pushing and shoving in property rights.

Norby’s book tells about the “unknown government” currently consuming 10% of all property taxes in California. It has a total indebtedness of over $56 billion. “Unlike other governments, it can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval.”

The book is full of simple to understand charts with the evidence of what the unknown government represents...and it is not for the benefit of the taxpayer.

In California, Norby says the “unknown government” is supported by a powerful Sacramento lobby and backed by an army of lawyers, consultants, bond brokers and land developers.

Your state no doubt has its own supporters ready to line their pockets. It doesn’t take long to figure out development is not really coming to your town to benefit you, but someone will reap the profits at your expense.

It is important to understand this unknown government provides no public services. “It does not educate our children, maintain our streets, protect us from crime, nor stock our libraries,” Norby states.

Anyone involved with a TIF district realizes this tax money does not go back to support any of the above public needs as the property taxes stay in the development area for up to 30 years or more.

What I loved about the book is it gives solutions to the problem. So many times we know we have the problems but we don’t know where to begin to do anything about it. Jane Chastain has written a book entitled I’d Speak Out on the Issues if I Only Knew What to Say. So many times we do nothing even when we know there is wrong being done, because we simply have no idea what to do or say.

In the chapter, “What you can Do,” Norby spells out how to use local activism and statewide activism. He encourages county and school officials to be more aggressive in appealing redevelopment tax diversions. He advocates state legislation and controls be placed on the widespread abuse of eminent domain.

The final chapter tells how to reclaim redevelopment revenue and give it back to the police department, public schools, public works, health care and for the people rather than big business.

The illustrations in this book tell the story. It is time to follow Orange County California’s lead this time. They should know because “they wrote the book.”

http://www.illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=27013