Breaking News/This Just In: Supreme Court Rules on Eminent Domain.

[Note to those disappointed after reading: it ain't over 'til it's over. This DOESN'T mean that community groups should give up their fights to save their communities. The fact that this vote and decision is SO close should be taken as a positive: it's not a done deal that local government can just roll on up and say they want your property. The U.S. Supreme Court decision means they will have to REALLY prove a need to do so. Here in Ardmore, we will merely double our efforts to save our businesses and historic buildings. This decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is a battle won ONLY, not the war. March on Soldiers against Injustice - our day WILL come! ]

In a nutshell:

A divided Supreme Court has just ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities (like ARDMORE, PA) where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.

The AP reports:

"Thursday's 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.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said."

MSNBC reports:

" "Where other states stand
According to the residents’ filing, the seven states that allow condemnations for private business development alone are Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.

Eight states forbid the use of eminent domain when the economic purpose is not to eliminate blight; they are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington.

Another three — Delaware, New Hampshire and Massachusetts — have indicated they probably will find condemnations for economic development alone unconstitutional, while the remaining states have not addressed or spoken clearly to the question."

The AP further reports:

""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."

MSNBC captured comments of the other Justices:
"“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."

For Full Coverage Refer to:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108&friend=nytimes

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_SEIZING_PROPERTY?SITE=NJBRU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/

For Further Information on the topic go to:

http://www.ij.org/

http://www.castlecoalition.org/

http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/op_eds.html?bcsi_scan_F840A710274448B9=kdSuYTojKpiys8VCsray1AMAAACDXEcC&bcsi_scan_filename=op_eds.html