YO CASA, MI CASA: HIGH COURT RULES

Carpe Sandra Diem!

Washington, WPI - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments can seize private property from one owner and give it to friendly developers. All that is required is for a municipality to determine that a property is “blighted or in a blighted area.” The corporations must then follow with boisterous claims that they will, “increase the tax base and create jobs.”

The court made it clear that local governments had sole responsibility to define “blight” and expidite the seizure of private property through the power of “eminent domain.”

In the case, Kelo v. City of New London, Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class New London neighborhood filed suit in 2000 when city officials introduced plans to raze their homes so a company could build a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. New London City officials defended the transfer of property from small home owners to a large corporation by claiming that the development, “served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, whatever they are.”

City Manager Anthony Mettso was encouraged by the decision, “We’re going to give these people good money for their houses. Most of them were dumps anyway. They’ll get more from the city then they woulda from a fire insurance payout, of that I’m certain.”

Al Steelitoli, Chairman of the New London Chamber of Commerce which participated in the suit as a “Friend of the Defendant,” was even more enthusiastic. “This is great. This is fantastic. Waterfront needs development. My friends have been waiting for this for years. We’re goinna get Federal money, state money and a few block grants- that neighborhood will be gone in two weeks!”

The Supreme Court case considered the sweep of the Fifth Amendment and the authority of government to seize private property for "public use." Thursday's ruling firmly established that giving a small homeowner’s property to a private developer was allowable as long as local officials determined that it was for, “the public good.” This is generally understood to mean that the development will produce new jobs and tax revenues.

Historically, governments used the authority of eminent-domain to take property for projects such as roads and schools. Begining in the late 1970's, driven by urban development, municipalities began to take properties if it was “blighted, or in a blighted area.” However, under Republican leadership nationwide many states have begun allowing cities, towns and villages to seize more desirable properties. Waterfront property on lakes, rivers and the ocean have been condemned and seized. Inland, gently rolling hills in pristine agricultural areas have been taken as potential sites for golf courses, rural corporate headquarters and gated communities.

This has lead to some severe criticism from conservationists and others. Justin Foreall, national chairman of the Sierra Club said in a speech, “The temptation and opportunity for corruption is unparalleled. To corrupt the Supreme Court might take decades. To corrupt the Senate would cost in the tens of millions in campaign finance money. To buy a few councilmen, it’s peanuts. These land grabs are never about, ‘jobs and taxes’ they are about the relentless march to merge government with corporate interests- just like the Military-Industrial complex- but on a local level, all across America.”

“Yeah, yeah, new jobs, blah, blah, blah. That ain’t the point” said New London developer Al Shoottu. “This is prime real estate! It’s beachfront. When the casino, I mean hotel, is up the whole town is gonna share in the pie. I mean the taxes, ya know?”

Critics have charged that giving local municipalities absolute authority to designate property as, “blighted,” and a target for seizure by eminent domain, is a bad thing. A spokesman for “Neighbor Protecting Neighbors,” a group formed to fight the planned waterfront development said, “You don’t understand. These guys, they are all connected. How hard is it to get a councilperson elected? They have union money, developer money. The whole town council, they’re all in on it.”

The spokesman asked to remain anonymous after last month’s mysterious disappearance of the group’s president, Don Herttme. New London Police Chief, Pauley Bearer, called the disappearance, “suspicious, but I think it’s a domestic thing. If I hadda guess, he’ll probably never resurface.”

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court's majority, said local officials know best in deciding whether a development will benefit the community.

“That’s our man!” gushed Chamber Chair Steelitoli on hearing the comment.