Supreme Court hears eminent-domain argument

News World Communications - (United Press International): "A municipality does not have the right to claim land from rightful owners just to increase a tax base, the U.S. Supreme Court was told Tuesday in a case that could recast the legal idea of eminent domain.

The court, with just seven justices in attendance, heard argument in Kelo vs. City of New London, a case form Connecticut in which a group of homeowners contend they have been unjustly forced to sell their homes to the city. New London officials said that the plan would result in an additional $680,000 in tax revenue for New London and about 700 direct jobs, 500 indirect jobs as well as 500 construction jobs.

According to current "takings" laws, local governments can acquire private land if it is for the benefit of the public and they justly compensate the homeowner for the property. Normally, this occurs in areas that are blighted, but the section of New London involved was not labeled a blighted area but economically depressed, causing critics to question what constitutes public benefit.

The redevelopment plan involved an upscale office building, expensive housing and a newly designed state park. The plan appealed to the pharmaceutical drug corporation Pfizer, which planned to incorporate a $300 million research facility on land adjacent to the project but not part of the "takings" property.

But the plan did not come without a price to the 15 homeowners represented by Bullock. The homeowners, some of whom had lived in the same house their entire lives, were forced out of their homes.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor posed the hypothetical scenario of communities buying Motel 8 hotels and replacing them with Ritz-Carltons, since the latter establishment is more expensive and would draw more revenue into the community. Scalia asked the City of New London Attorney Wesley W. Horton whether "you can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes."

Breyer asked whether there was any way to ensure that homeowners receive just compensation, rather than being worse off after paying for moving costs, taxes and searching for a new home. Breyer pointed out that the problem is compounded by the fact that eminent-domain issues usually occur in poorer communities where homeowners often cannot afford to move.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist did not attend Tuesday's argument and is expected to be absent from the Supreme Court for several weeks due to health concerns. The New York Times reported that officials in the Bush administration and Congress are discussing whether Rehnquist would retire at the end of the current term sometime this summer.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who has been filling in for Rehnquist in the leadership role, was also gone Tuesday, due to a missed airline flight, leaving the leadership duties to O'Connor."

(No. 04-108, Suzette Kelo et al. vs. City of New London, et al.)