Personal property seizures

CNN reported 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.

That is the way it should be.

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.

And if you can bribe a local official, you can get him to steal property you want to use.

"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. 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.

DJ Drummond blogged Court Appointments Matter - because the United States Supreme Court has just decided that your city council can throw you off your own land, in order to accomodate luxury hotels and exclusive clubs. Do not ever, ever, vote for a liberal Democrat or fake Republican again. Your home may depend on it.

Glenn Reynolds blogged OUR STATIST SUPREME COURT STRIKES AGAIN: They've had quite a run lately.

This is outrageous. Read syllabus, Justice Stevens's opinion, Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion.