As we all know, many cash strapped cities and towns are using eminent domain to condemn their residents' homes. All for the sole reason of selling it to a company that potentially will pay higher taxes. Sold to said companies at cheaper prices than the homeowner would. Some of these companies have also insisted on being exempt from said desparately needed taxes for the first x-amount of years. Excerpt:

The controversial case pits the rights of property owners against the efforts of government officials to revitalize depressed communities, and the justices in hourlong arguments appeared divided on which side of the issue they fall.
Their decision could have far-ranging implications and, reflecting the high stakes, the courtroom was packed with lawyers and government officials, as well as the group of homeowners from New London, Conn., who are at the heart of the case.
Lawyers for the homeowners say the case is the most important property rights dispute to reach the court in 50 years, because it could limit the government's ability to condemn property for economic redevelopment under its power of eminent domain.
Governments have relied on that power to condemn land for traditional public uses, such as railways, roads, public utilities, schools, waste treatment plants and the like. But they also have used condemnation powers to assemble large parcels of land for redevelopment--be it for an automobile manufacturing plant or a speedway or a baseball stadium.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked a lawyer for New London, "For example, a Motel 6. The city thinks it should have a Ritz-Carlton, [to] have higher taxes. Is that OK?"
"Yes, Justice O'Connor, that's OK," attorney Wesley Horton said.
"You can take from A and give it to B, if B pays more in taxes?" a dubious Justice Antonin Scalia asked.
"If it's a significant amount," Horton said.
The 5th Amendment provides that no private property shall be "taken for public use, without just compensation." At issue is whether New London's proposed private economic redevelopment, designed to add jobs and increase tax revenue, amounts to a "public use" that would permit government officials to take a person's property after paying its fair value.
"You're leaving out that New London was in a depressed economic condition," Ginsburg told Bullock. "The critical fact, on the city's side, at least, is this was a depressed community, and it wanted to build it up to get more jobs."
Souter also pressed Bullock throughout his argument, suggesting that the redevelopment amounted to a legitimate public purpose because it would boost the struggling city's future.
But Scalia provided a strong counter argument to Souter. He made clear he agreed with Bullock and believed that New London had gone too far.
"What this lady wants is not more money. No amount of money could satisfy her. She lived in this house her whole life," said Scalia, speaking about 86-year-old Wilhelmina Dery, one of the residents.
She and the other homeowners, including Susette Kelo, see no reason they should sell simply for private redevelopment, Scalia said.

I think that what has really 'caught' the attention of many is that some 'towns' are taking little old ladies' homes. For no better reason than to put in a mall, hotel, whatever. I can understand the need to do this for a road or school, something which benefits all. However, just to put in a business is ridiculous. Make the business pay 'fair market value' for everyones' homes/land. In order for some small towns not to lose what little citizens they have, many choose to exempt major business from taxes for a set amount of years. I have seen a few stories of them up and leaving after the moratorium of taxes are over. One that sticks out is a Wal-Mart pulled up stakes when the 5year business tax exemption was over. If no towns would exempt businesses, then maybe they would get the money they want. And handing a business the right to condemn someones property for saying NO, that's just wrong. How do they know the business asked first? They could have just condemned without asking. There is something very wrong with this picture. This could potentially affect millions. There are many more small towns than there are big cities. Gives you a 'what's next?' feeling if this is allowed to go on by the Supreme Court. They are the last word in our court system. It can only be bypassed if Congress passes a law, and the President signs it. Even then, it can be appealed all the way back to the Court. Where are we then? They've already set a precedent by that time. Maybe I'm just seeing 'doom' where there's no reason to. What do you think? |