Kelo V. New London not "the last word" on eminent domain.

In a 5-4 decision announced on June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, that the city's condemnation of several private residences pursuant to a comprehensive economic development plan did not violate the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first time the Court has considered this specific issue – i.e., the taking of non-blighted private land for the purpose of economic development.

In an amicus (friend of the court) brief filed jointly with the National Association of Home Builders, NAR argued that the Supreme Court should provide a framework for an intermediate level of judicial scrutiny that would allow courts in future cases to determine whether eminent domain is appropriate in situations where a private party will maintain primary ownership, control, or jurisdiction over the condemned property. Unfortunately, the Court rejected this argument, determining that it was inappropriate to second-guess the city's comprehensive economic development plan.

In the Realtor.org link attached below are several documents which provide more detailed information about the Kelo case, the Court's decision, NAR's policy and position on the case, and additional reference resources.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Please be aware that the Kelo decision is not the final word on the issue of eminent domain. On June 30, the House of Representatives, in quick response to the Kelo decision, approved a resolution disapproving of the decision and urging state and local governments to use eminent domain only for purposes that serve the public good in accordance with the Fifth Amendment. The House also approved an amendment to the FY 2006 Transportation-Treasury-Housing appropriations bill that would prevent the use of such funds to enforce the Supreme Court decision. Several other eminent domain bills have been introduced in the House and Senate. NAR is reviewing them to determine our position.

States also may place restrictions on the exercise of eminent domain by governmental entities within their borders. For that reason, the eminent domain battleground is likely to now shift to the state level. A number of states currently impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline affirmed in the Kelo decision. Some are established by state constitutional law, while others are provided by state eminent domain statutes that limit the grounds upon which condemnations may be exercised. Thus, property owners in some states may be legally protected against the type of eminent domain action at issue in the Kelo case.

NAR is creating resource materials and information designed to assist state and local REALTOR® associations in addressing the eminent domain issue at the state or local level. It will be available in phases in August and September and will be available on REALTOR.org. Furthermore, NAR has several existing programs which may be of assistance to state and local REALTOR® associations on the eminent domain issue.

Further information is available at: http://www.realtor.org/realtororg.nsf/pages/EminentDomain, or please contact Bob McNamara at 202-383-1268 or via email at bmcnamara@realtors.org, or contact Russell Riggs at 202-383-1259 or via email at rriggs@realtors.org.

Many state legislatures are working on legislation to prevent local governments from using eminent domain to take private property for the purposes of tranfering it to another private party.

On Edit: These are the states with "blight" laws.

"But for decades, the court has been expanding the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight. Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington already forbid the taking of private property for economic development except to eliminate blight.
All of these states have laws about eminent domain except in cases of "blight". And they get to define blight. "

"Illinois state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger, a Republican who is considering a run for governor, said the state's blight laws need to be more restrictive.

"The statutory definition of blight in Illinois is broader than the Mississippi River at its mouth," he said. "They have taken everything from underdeveloped lakefront property to open green-grass farmfields as being defined as blighted."

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/7/21/17420/3340

Florida's definition of "blight", and if only two conditions exist, an area qualifies.

8) "Blighted area" means an area in which there are a substantial number of deteriorated, or deteriorating structures, in which conditions, as indicated by government-maintained statistics or other studies, are leading to economic distress or endanger life or property, and in which two or more of the following factors are present:

(a) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, parking facilities, roadways, bridges, or public transportation facilities;

(b) Aggregate assessed values of real property in the area for ad valorem tax purposes have failed to show any appreciable increase over the 5 years prior to the finding of such conditions;

(c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;

(d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions;

(e) Deterioration of site or other improvements;

(f) Inadequate and outdated building density patterns;

(g) Falling lease rates per square foot of office, commercial, or industrial space compared to the remainder of the county or municipality;

(h) Tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land;

(i) Residential and commercial vacancy rates higher in the area than in the remainder of the county or municipality;

(j) Incidence of crime in the area higher than in the remainder of the county or municipality;

(k) Fire and emergency medical service calls to the area proportionately higher than in the remainder of the county or municipality;

(l) A greater number of violations of the Florida Building Code in the area than the number of violations recorded in the remainder of the county or municipality;

(m) Diversity of ownership or defective or unusual conditions of title which prevent the free alienability of land within the deteriorated or hazardous area; or

(n) Governmentally owned property with adverse environmental conditions caused by a public or private entity.

"However, the term "blighted area" also means any area in which at least one of the factors identified in paragraphs (a) through (n) are present and all taxing authorities subject to s. 163.387(2)(a) agree, either by interlocal agreement or agreements with the agency or by resolution, that the area is blighted. Such agreement or resolution shall only determine that the area is blighted. For purposes of qualifying for the tax credits authorized in chapter 220, "blighted area" means an area as defined in this subsection."

the majority we would be screaming FASCIST BASTARDS! until our
voices were shot.

It is no consolation that Kelo is not the last word, the court is supposed to uphold the constitution not water down its protections to serve the government/corporate alliance.

father...errr..the government knows best.