Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Official power to seize land expanded

The Supreme Court narrowly agrees that local governments may take property to foster private development.

By CARRIE JOHNSON
Published June 24, 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court granted new authority to local governments Thursday, clearing the way for people's homes and businesses to be forcibly seized for private economic development.

The 5-4 opinion significantly expands the power of eminent domain, which allows cities to condemn homes for public uses such as a highway or to wipe out blight. Now residences can be bulldozed for shopping malls and office parks if the project is intended to help boost a community's economy.

Government officials downplayed the significance of the ruling, saying eminent domain was still an expensive and time-consuming process. But advocates for homeowners' rights said the decision opens the door for abuse of power.

"A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result," said Scott Bullock, who represented a group of Connecticut residents whose homes are slated to be destroyed for a new office complex.

In writing the court's majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, can best decide whether a development project will benefit the community.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government. There is, moreover, no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes that we have recognized," Stevens wrote.

States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, Stevens wrote.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer - and by Anthony Kennedy.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a blistering dissent, accusing her colleagues of handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the wealthy.

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

Also dissenting were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the more conservative members of the court.

Richard Broughton, a visiting professor at Stetson University College of Law, said he wasn't surprised by the vote. The conservative justices are staunch supporters of personal property rights, he said, while the liberal bloc favors allowing cities to enact urban renewal projects that benefit the poor.

The court's ruling won't allow governments to seize homes at will. Condemnation procedures must still be followed, which means homeowners would be entitled to compensation for their losses.

Jackson Bowman, a St. Petersburg lawyer who specializes in eminent domain cases, said the ruling was so outrageous he expected Florida residents to push for a state constitutional amendment to restrict it.

"This just opens the door," said Bowman, who works for the law firm of Brigham Moore. "It's going to upset a lot of people."

At issue in the case was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials said that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth and that it outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

The National League of Cities backed New London's position, arguing that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal.

"Where would Baltimore be without the Inner Harbor, Kansas City without the Kansas Speedway, Canton, Mississippi, without its new Nissan plant?" said NLC president Anthony Williams, mayor of Washington D.C.

The ruling drew immediate attention from government officials around Tampa Bay. Most said it wouldn't have much of an immediate impact, but residents from one beach community were concerned.

In St. Pete Beach, city commissioners want to create a community redevelopment area, which would allow the city to condemn properties and take them for economic development.

Before, the city had to prove the properties were blighted before they could be razed. With today's ruling, they may no longer have to meet that standard.

"It used to be, our home was our castle," said Terry Gannon, president of Citizens for Responsible Growth. "Now our home is our castle until we see the bulldozers coming."

St. Pete Beach Commissioner Ed Ruttencutter said the fears are unfounded. He said the city is creating the community redevelopment area only for property tax purposes and has no plan to exercise eminent domain.

"Personally, I wish the decision had gone the other way," Ruttencutter said. "Local governments taking away people's property for nonessential use is a bad idea."

Tampa City Attorney David Smith said the city had been prepared to use eminent domain to acquire land in the Tampa Heights neighborhood as part of redevelopment plans there. But he said he believes the city managed to persuade property owners to sell without having to go to court.

He thought the court's decision would "be helpful for municipalities in assisting their efforts at redeveloping similar areas," but added: "I think some property owners will feel closer to Justice O'Connor's opinion."

In St. Petersburg, eminent domain hasn't been used for economic development since downtown property was assembled for Bay Plaza, which is now BayWalk, said Mayor Rick Baker.

Baker said condemnation is a lengthy and expensive process, and governments prefer to settle with property owners outside court.

Under state law, the municipality must pay the property owners' legal fees if the condemnation case goes to court.

"It's usually easier and often less expensive to come up with voluntary agreements," Baker said.

Darryl Rouson, president of the St. Petersburg NAACP, called the ruling "extremely exciting" and said he hoped city officials would use it to clean up Midtown, a 5.5-square-mile area that is economically depressed.

Other local officials said they would hesitate to use this power.

"I'm extremely surprised the court would let it be used for anything but narrowly tailored public purposes," said Tampa City Council member Linda Saul-Sena.

Pinellas County Commissioner Bob Stewart agreed: "Eminent domain has always been a last resort. That's a strange role for government to play and I would approach it with caution."

Times staff writer Bill Varian contributed to this report, which also used information from the Associated Press. Carrie Johnson can be reached at 727 892-2273 or cjohnson@sptimes.com

[Last modified June 24, 2005, 00:47:10]