AgdaPkt 2005-07-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1:1-/ KELO from page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The case involved a development plan to create 1,000 jobs, increase public revenues, and generally revitalize an economically distressed city. To implement the plan, New London pur- chased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condem- nation proceedings against those who refused to sell. In reviewing the legal issues, however, the court upheld in a five-to-four decision the city's authority to condemn land for the purpose of economic development. Specifically, court exam- ined the scope of the "public use" requirement of the Takings Clause, which provides that the power of eminent domain (and the resulting just compen- sation) may only be used for "public purposes." The owners had challenged the public nature of the New London's action because the ultimate result was to tum the land over to a developer. Thus, the owners argued, the action was effec- tively "private" insofar that it ultimately resulted in transferring ownership of the land from one private part to another. Justice Stevens, delivering the opinion of the court, rejected this argument, noting that subse- quent private ownership did not necessarily negate the public purpose of the action. There is no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other recognized public purposes. Indeed, the city's development plan included many public elements, such as a marina, parks, and a riverwalk. Moreover, the court deferred to the city's determination that the overall objective of rejuve- nating the downtown and waterfront was in itself a sufficient public purpose to justify the condemna- tion action. The court concluded by noting that in "affirm- ing the city's authority to take petitioners' proper- ties, we do not minimize the hardship that con- demnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise Df the takings power...." Finally, Justice Kennedy hinted that this ruling might not be so broad as it first appears. Though he joined the majority, he filed a concurring opinion stating that in his mind there were limits to how deferential the court would be to deferring to legislative bodies on the issue of public purpose. In such cases, he would entertain a higher level of judicial scrutiny. V\lhen combined with the four dissenting justices, there would seem to be a majority of justices that would favor some limita- tions to the rule affirmed by the court. But Justice Kennedy did not provide any further clarification, leaving that determination to another day. For a copy of the decision, see U.S. Supreme Court's website at www.supremecourtus.Qov/ opinions/O4slipopinion.html. THE 2005 CITY HALL DIRECTORY IS NOW AVAILABLE Don't miss this opportunity to get the League's most useful reference tool. This comprehensive California directory provides important contact information for mayors, council members and city department heads. The directory also features the League's staff directory, League partners, affiliate organizations and a wide variety of advertisers. INFORMATION YOU NEED, RIGHT AT YOUR FINGERTIPS! Purchase this publication on-line at www.cacities.orQ/store or call 916-658- 8257 for an order form. City officials price$30, non-city official price $65, plus shipping & handling. PAGE a/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the league's Official Website .. www.cacities.org -'T'----"