Uh-Oh not good news

Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development - New York Times

I have to agree with the dissenting opinion on this one.
It really will open a can of worms.

"WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.

In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.

The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, 'Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized.' The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales.

Justice Stevens noted that city officials had been addressing New London's sagging economic fortunes for years, and he said their decisions on how best to cope with them were entitled to wide deference.

Of course, he wrote, the city would be barred from taking one's property and transferring it to another private owner strictly for the latter's benefit. But in this instance, he said, the city is promoting a variety of commercial, residential and recreational land uses 'with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts' and bring economic benefits to the general community.

In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. 'The specter of condemnation hangs over all property,' she wrote. 'Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.'

'Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,' she wrote. 'The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

'As for the victims,' Justice O'Connor went on, 'the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.'

Justice Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice O'Connor's fellow dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."