US Supreme Court Decisions

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

UThe key phrasing that the case turns on is 'public use'. It can surely be argued that increased tax revenues and increasing tourism and whatnot can be public use... but that's a very broad reading of it. It can also be read that public use is only when the government uses the land it takes.

Only want to add that the economic benefits cited as a reason for the condemnation/taking now only need to be "predicted" according to Kennedy's opinion. Increased tax revenues and tourism don't have to materialize, just be expected.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Dola - I'm interested to hear from all you lawyers if you think this decision completely invalidates the 5th Ammendment.

EDIT: Not sure I think so. I do think that the only avenue of attack property owners now have is to fight what constitutes "just compensation".

[Mustang]

What an absolutely sickening decision...

[Arles]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm going to read the decision this afternoon. I don't know if it was right or wrong as a legal matter. But one thing that I have noticed is that most people are against it as a policy matter--both liberal and conservative.

While I doubt that there will be enough momentum behind it, I wonder if this is one of those issues where there might be enough support for a constitutional amendment. I think that you may be able to get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree to limit the power of eminent domain to actual public use and not to public purpose.

I doubt it. Unless it's a hot-button social issue, legislation often comes down to lobbying and financial donations. The land developer lobby is much more powerful than any small group of citizens that may pop up advocating better property laws. Even the private real estate companies that don't develop can't compete in the lobbying arena with the developers. Congress, on both sides, will side with the developers on this. But, like most issues where congress doesn't side with the "people", I doubt it will ever find its way on any congressional agenda.

[maximus]

Originally Posted by Bearcat729

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.
ADVERTISEMENT


Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice
John Paul Stevenswrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice
Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

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

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices
Antonin Scaliaand
Clarence Thomas.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

All your homes are belong to us.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Dola - I'm interested to hear from all you lawyers if you think this decision completely invalidates the 5th Ammendment.

EDIT: Not sure I think so. I do think that the only avenue of attack property owners now have is to fight what constitutes "just compensation".

Why would it? The case was defining what the 5th Amendment 'public use' provision meant. After all, it still has to be the state that takes the property.

[flere-imsaho]

It's a shame they never use eminent domain for anything cool, like maglev trains.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That was ALREADY something the federal government could have done before this decision. If the government needed land for a freeway in 2005, 1995, 1985, 1975, etc, they could take your home and build the freeway. It's hard to argue that isn't public use.

Sorry about that. Good point by Isiddiqui - I meant to focus on the "strip mall" or private enterprising end. Thanks for the correction.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why would it? The case was defining what the 5th Amendment 'public use' provision meant. After all, it still has to be the state that takes the property.

Not sure, that's why I asked.

It seems to me that this decision essentially makes it ok for a government to act as merely a vehicle by which developers can get their hands on the property. So long as "economic development" and "public benefits" are predicted after the taking.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Only want to add that the economic benefits cited as a reason for the condemnation/taking now only need to be "predicted" according to Kennedy's opinion. Increased tax revenues and tourism don't have to materialize, just be expected.

So. all I need to do is claim the mansion, or mall, or whatever, I want to build is worth more, and thus will generate more tax revenue, then the combined value of the homes currently on the land I want. What I acutely decide to do, if anything, with the land is immaterial. This is a wet dream for land speculators.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Not sure, that's why I asked.

It seems to me that this decision essentially makes it ok for a government to act as merely a vehicle by which developers can get their hands on the property. So long as "economic development" and "public benefits" are predicted after the taking.

As Volokh has pointed out on his blog, I'm not sure the dissent is really much better. The dissent allows the government to seize property and run a private enterprise (as they often do) by themselves. The majority says you can seize property for private enterprise run by private entities. I'm not sure how this will play in the real world, but I think takings is a hard area of the constitution.

I'm not a fan of the outcome of the decision, but I'm not sure it is constitutionally wrong either. I think people shouldn't have their property taken for use by private entitites, but I'm not sure the phrase "public use" in the constitution prohibits it. It is far from a clear issue.

Nonetheless, the solution would be for congress (or any state) to pass a law barring this type of takings (a constitutional amendment is not required). I think that may happen in many cases. So, before everyone panics, this really isn't that big of a change until we see the real world results.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

It seems to me that this decision essentially makes it ok for a government to act as merely a vehicle by which developers can get their hands on the property. So long as "economic development" and "public benefits" are predicted after the taking.

That's how I read it as well. Which makes O'Connor's comment on everyone not having the same access to the political process exceptionally important. I'm sure we're all familiar with communities where the local officials are in thrall to the local developers. This gives them a green light.

Anyway, I'll bet the immediate impact of this will be a lot more lawsuits about what the "fair value" of a property was. It's good to be a lawyer, I guess.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Anyway, I'll bet the immediate impact of this will be a lot more lawsuits about what the "fair value" of a property was.

Um... why? Fair value has always been a concern in eminent domain actions. Do you think the state will be more inclined to low ball homeowners because of this? Or are you saying there will be far more eminent domain actions?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Nonetheless, the solution would be for congress (or any state) to pass a law barring this type of takings (a constitutional amendment is not required). I think that may happen in many cases. So, before everyone panics, this really isn't that big of a change until we see the real world results.

I doubt congress will act on this. I don't think there will be enough of a national outcry, except from those of us who are paying attention. I expect the states will move on this first since it seems like such a localized issue.

I think the immediate results, at least in Arizona, will be less and less sales tax subsidies being put infront of the city council/voters for big companies wishing to relocate/expand here. Instead I think the cities will start to condem private property and either lease it to big companies, or convey it for a bargain price in exchange for a promise of some amount of jobs being located here. That way the politicians can say they brought jobs to their district, rather than they supported sales tax subsidies for big companies. Eaiser to win elections that way.

And that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... why? Fair value has always been a concern in eminent domain actions. Do you think the state will be more inclined to low ball homeowners because of this? Or are you saying there will be far more eminent domain actions?

The latter.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Essentially, even when you own a piece of land, you're just renting it now. It is simply a HORRID ruling, and one I'd like to see some of the majority decision makers get shot in the head over (yes, I feel that strongly).

.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

.

?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

?

!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by John Galt

!

$

[Wolfpack]

¢

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Bearcat729

Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Another strike against freedom.

[Buccaneer]

[Peregrine]

It's nice to see something that people of all political stripes can agree on on this board -- this decision sucks!

[Galaxy]

I find it funny that we have the right to own property, but we have to pay taxes on our own property on top of the intial "purchasing" property.

[Young Drachma]

This decision is really, really disappointing. Hardly surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I find it funny that we have the right to own property, but we have to pay taxes on our own property on top of the intial "purchasing" property.

In other words, I find it funny that something called government exists...

[Flasch186]

...eminent domain for private to private conversions is a bad idea and in the wrong hands could be devastating.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

In other words, I find it funny that something called government exists...

Pretty much sums up my feelings.

[MrBigglesworth]

I am a real estate agent in PA, so take my knowledge and biases for what it may be worth, but...

Originally Posted by Blackadar

1. Constitutional - The clause is for "public use". That means to be used by the public and for the public. Not to turn it over to another private party. The Supremes need reading comprehension classes on this one.

If we are taking a literal interpretation of the Constitution, I think this was the right call. Public good can be an a nebulous term. Clearly, strip malls are a benefit for the community, both through increased tax revenue for the local governments and for the convenience of local shopping for residents that live nearby.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

2. Moral - this ruling is awful.

I agree, I think this is the absolute worst moral decision. I can't imagine someone taking my house and offering what THEY think is a fair market value. And consider if the real estate market suddenly went down, and you owe more than the house is worth. Now you have to pay for the right to lose your house.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Essentially, even when you own a piece of land, you're just renting it now.

That has always been the case. Court after court has agreed that the government has a right to charge you rent (aka 'property taxes') indefinitely, and is also shown in the concept of echeat (at least in PA).

So, in summary, I think this was the right decision by the court in so much as their job is to interpret the law, but I think that the law should be changed. I think it would have been an 'activist' ruling to rule the other way, but I think it is up to the legislature to amend the Constitution.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So, in summary, I think this was the right decision by the court in so much as their job is to interpret the law, but I think that the law should be changed. I think it would have been an 'activist' ruling to rule the other way, but I think it is up to the legislature to amend the Constitution.

I'd take issue with this statement. Reading what's on the paper (Constitution) isn't an activist ruling. Distorting the fairly blatent language to make decisions like this is activists. I'd say this is just flat-out a bad decision by some old fuckers who live in rich neighborhoods who will never have to deal with the ramifications of their decisions.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I'd take issue with this statement. Reading what's on the paper (Constitution) isn't an activist ruling. Distorting the fairly blatent language to make decisions like this is activists. I'd say this is just flat-out a bad decision by some old fuckers who live in rich neighborhoods who will never have to deal with the ramifications of their decisions.

Actually, as the term "activist" is used in normal discourse, this is not an "activist" ruling. The majority of the people (as expressed through the legislature) decided to take an action that injured some individuals. Those individuals beleived that the Constitution protected their individual rights from the government action.

In this case, the court intereperted the Constitutional right narrowly and refused to block the will of the people. This was, therefore, a non-activist decision. Remeber, the actual taking of land was done by the state--not the Court.

Normally, one can't picture oneself in the shoes of the person who has his alleged rights violated (The Hispanic who had his car impounded because he "looked kinda funny." The Arab who is not allowed to gather evidence relevant to his defense because "he might learn something about our investigation from that evidence." The Nazi who wants to exercise his right to free speech. The store owner who beleives that he needs to own a gun to protect his store, etc.), so it is easier to side with the will of the people over the alleged right in question. In this case, we can all side with a middle class person who owns a house, so the right seems more important to us.

You can argue, almost certainly correctly, that the legislature in this case was motivated by lobbying money and does not really represent the will of the people--which is why this seems to be a case where the court goes against the will of the people. But that is not an issue for the courts. This is simply a case of individual rights v. will of the people. The will of the people won here. Whether the case is right or wrong is not really relevant to knowing that it is not "activist" as that term is normally defined.

(FWIW, in this case, the problem, as pretty much every justice noted, is that over time, the relevant precedent eroded away 5th Amendment rights without anyone noticing just how bad it had become. The majority could not distinguish the precedent and felt compelled to follow it. Justice Kennedy agreed with the majority, but wrote seprately to indicate--in effect--that he was not comfortable with the decision. The dissent tried to distinguish the precedent, which I think is the better result but not as intellectually sound as the majority approach. And Justice Thomas dissented separately to argue that we should revist and change the relevant precedent.)

I've been meaning to post a WDYK about judicial activism. The one I did about torts and personal injury seemed to go over pretty well. It's just been hard to come up with the time and energy to do so.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Actually, as the term "activist" is used in normal discourse, this is not an "activist" ruling. The majority of the people (as expressed through the legislature) decided to take an action that injured some individuals. Those individuals beleived that the Constitution protected their individual rights from the government action.

In this case, the court intereperted the Constitutional right narrowly and refused to block the will of the people. This was, therefore, a non-activist decision. Remeber, the actual taking of land was done by the state--not the Court.

Normally, one can't picture oneself in the shoes of the person who has his alleged rights violated (The Hispanic who had his car impounded because he "looked kinda funny." The Arab who is not allowed to gather evidence relevant to his defense because "he might learn something about our investigation from that evidence." The Nazi who wants to exercise his right to free speech. The store owner who beleives that he needs to own a gun to protect his store, etc.), so it is easier to side with the will of the people over the alleged right in question. In this case, we can all side with a middle class person who owns a house, so the right seems more important to us.

You can argue, almost certainly correctly, that the legislature in this case was motivated by lobbying money and does not really represent the will of the people--which is why this seems to be a case where the court goes against the will of the people. But that is not an issue for the courts. This is simply a case of individual rights v. will of the people. The will of the people won here. Whether the case is right or wrong is not really relevant to knowing that it is not "activist" as that term is normally defined.

(FWIW, in this case, the problem, as pretty much every justice noted, is that over time, the relevant precedent eroded away 5th Amendment rights without anyone noticing just how bad it had become. The majority could not distinguish the precedent and felt compelled to follow it. Justice Kennedy agreed with the majority, but wrote seprately to indicate--in effect--that he was not comfortable with the decision. The dissent tried to distinguish the precedent, which I think is the better result but not as intellectually sound as the majority approach. And Justice Thomas dissented separately to argue that we should revist and change the relevant precedent.)

I've been meaning to post a WDYK about judicial activism. The one I did about torts and personal injury seemed to go over pretty well. It's just been hard to come up with the time and energy to do so.

I appreciate your superior knowledge of the law and I bow to it. When I use the word activist, I'm saying that they've corrupted the law so badly as to twist the words of the Constitution which are pretty damned clear and fairly unambiguous to allow something like this.

It has nothing to do with the will of the people. It has everything to do with the words on the paper. I think that these fuckers need to go back to law school and get an education in the real world. I feel so strongly about this type of decision - one that absolutely and blatently fucks the little guy and the Constitution at the same time - that I would probably contribute to the defense fund of a homeowner who lived in New London and who decided to put a bullet through the head of each and every Supreme who voted that way.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I appreciate your superior knowledge of the law and I bow to it. When I use the word activist, I'm saying that they've corrupted the law so badly as to twist the words of the Constitution which are pretty damned clear and fairly unambiguous to allow something like this.

It has nothing to do with the will of the people. It has everything to do with the words on the paper. I think that these fuckers need to go back to law school and get an education in the real world. I feel so strongly about this type of decision - one that absolutely and blatently fucks the little guy and the Constitution at the same time - that I would probably contribute to the defense fund of a homeowner who lived in New London and who decided to put a bullet through the head of each and every Supreme who voted that way.

I appreciate your anger. Remember, though, that your real beef is with the local and state governments that are allowing the plan. The Supremes didn't gas up the bulldozers for this one. They just said that the Constitution does not forbid Connecticut from doing it.

The real enemy here as this battle is played out across the nation is real estate developers and their chokeholds on local government. This case presents an extreme example, but all across the country, family homes are under attack because a few people can make gobs of money by tearing those homes down and putting up million dollar condos. They are tricky and relentless. In South Carolina, for example, they try to slip provisions into "environmental" bills that will create strange tax structures for certain costal land. When examined closely, one notices that those tax structures are designed to raise the property tax on family homes that have had the audacity not to sell out to developers yet. Raise the taxes enough, and no one can afford to keep the land. So they have to sell to developers, who can then place developments there that just happen to fall into a loophole in the oppressive tax structure. I am sure that things like this happen everywhere--South Carolina is just one of the ones where I am aware of the details.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I appreciate your superior knowledge of the law and I bow to it. When I use the word activist, I'm saying that they've corrupted the law so badly as to twist the words of the Constitution which are pretty damned clear and fairly unambiguous to allow something like this.

It has nothing to do with the will of the people. It has everything to do with the words on the paper. I think that these fuckers need to go back to law school and get an education in the real world. I feel so strongly about this type of decision - one that absolutely and blatently fucks the little guy and the Constitution at the same time - that I would probably contribute to the defense fund of a homeowner who lived in New London and who decided to put a bullet through the head of each and every Supreme who voted that way.

To echo albionmoonlight's comments, I think the word "activist" is a little overused so it loses most of its meaning. The idea that the meaning of the words of the constitution are easy to interpret and judges distort them for their own agendas is a little simplistic, IMO. Some of the biggest debates among legal scholars revolve around how to determine what the constitution means. Your view seems to fit the idea of strict textualism which is actually not a widely held view anymore. Instead most legal scholars who used to hold textualist views have become interpretivists who seek the original meaning of the constitution.

The key problems with textualism from my perspective are that 1) the meaning of the words is far from clear, 2) the meaning of words changes over time, 3) textualism cannot be used as a complete theory because much of the constitution defies literal meaning, 4) textualism misses important contextual points which change the meaning of the individual clauses, 5) it is actually easier to insert bias into a textualist approach than some of the other interpretive methods, and 6) textualism leads to many absurd outcomes when viewing individual amendments (like Thomas's reading of the Establishment Clause that would allow every state to have their own state religion).

In this case, "public use" is actually much trickier than one would think. For example, textually, can you think of any reason the government cannot seize houses, build a mall, but run it entirely as a government enterprise? Also, why can the government tax sales to subsidize a stadium, but not seize property to do the same? The general answer is that the stadium burdens everyone equally, whereas it is unjust to burden a few disproportionately. However, I don't know where you can find the textual support for that.

In many ways, though, this decision is anti-activist. It narrows a constitutional right by assuming a very limited reading of it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I am a real estate agent in PA, so take my knowledge and biases for what it may be worth, but...

Holy cow, I don't believe it -- you & I seem to agree on something.

Not on everything mind you, but at least on something

Your take on this being the only "correct" ruling per the Constitution matches mine. We seem to also agree on the notion that this being "amendable" is the way for opponents to change it.

We begin to part company on how "right or wrong" this all is, thereby reassuring both of us that our general agreement isn't a sign that either of us is slipping.

[larrymcg421]

From my reading of the two opinions, the dissent was far more activist than the majority. The majority based it's opinion on tons of prcedent, while the dissent had much less precedent to point to and argued some really abstract concepts to get their point across.

[larrymcg421]

dola

From the dissent:

For all these reasons, I would revisit our Public Use Clause cases and consider returning to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause: that the government may take property only if it actually uses or gives the public a legal right to use the property.

If anything, the dissent admits that the court was properly following stare decisis, but was arguing they they should have ignored it. If they had done that, it would have been judicial activism.

I hate the idea that this happened as much as anyone else, but the Justices aren't the ones to blame.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

For those of you who think that condeming land is ok so long as fair market value is paid for the land should really read this article. I don't argue that this condemnation is perfectly legal on behalf of the city, even after the horrible SCOTUS decision.

I have a problem with the "just compensation" offered to these business owners. It's anything but just.

Phoenix set to seize 5 acres for downtown ASU campus

Ginger D. Richardson
The Arizona Republic

Jun. 25, 2005 12:00 AM Phoenix plans to seize nearly 5 acres to build the new Arizona State University Downtown Phoenix Campus.

After months of failed negotiations, the city's attorneys filed the condemnation notices this week in Maricopa County Superior Court against eight downtown property owners. The land the city wants ranges from vacant parking lots to a three-story office building. More filings are expected. The city anticipates that it will need to use eminent domain to acquire a little more than 25 percent of the campus.

"We will continue to negotiate with people, of course," Assistant City Manager Sheryl Sculley said. "But we do have to proceed and move forward on this."

The City Council authorized the use of eminent domain, which allows governments to take private property by force, more than six months ago to assemble land for the campus.

But even though the move was expected, it is doing little to cool the ire of those about to lose their property.

"It's pretty clear . . . that the city has carte blanche to take the land," said landowner Norman Fox, referring to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday that further strengthened the law that allows cities to seize homes and businesses in the name of redevelopment. "But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be treated fairly."

The most critical case involves the Park Place building at 500 N. Third St., which is slated to become ASU's College of Nursing. City officials say they need to start renovation work by fall in time for the first classes in August 2006.

"We are really up against a deadline here," Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said of the building. "We can't miss this opportunity."

The city also filed an order asking for immediate possession of that property and all the other parcels. It wasn't clear Friday how soon Phoenix could take control of them, but City Attorney Gary Verburg said he hopes Phoenix will have possession of at least Park Place by the end of summer.

"We can take possession as soon as the judge says we can take possession," he said. "We can fight about value later."

Property owners must be served notice of the condemnation filings and then will have 20 days to respond before a hearing can be scheduled. However, almost everyone agrees that the city has a legal right to take the property. The fight is expected to be over how much Phoenix will pay for it.

In total, the ASU campus will stretch over about 20 acres of prime real estate. The school will be bordered by Van Buren Street on the south, First Avenue on the west, Second and Third streets on the east and Fillmore Street on the north.

The city already has purchased some of the land; other parcels are being developed under public-private deals that are being worked out with property owners.

Phoenix has hired an outside firm to appraise each of the properties being condemned. According to records obtained Friday by The Arizona Republic, the city is offering anywhere from $35 to $115 per square foot for each property.

Some question whether those are fair prices.

Anthony Olivieri, for example, said he bought some land and a commercial building on Central Avenue for $490,000 back in 2003. On April 1, the city offered him about $440,000.

"I wouldn't say that I am being treated unfairly, but it does bother me the way that the city is handling this whole thing," said Olivieri, who hoped to build a high-rise development on the site in a partnership.

Others are more blunt.

"All I know is that I've been notified in writing that the city is going to take my land, and I am not happy about it," said Leon Woodward, who owns a building rented by a dry cleaner and a parking lot at 501 and 509 N. First St.

Woodward's case wasn't among this week's filings, but the city is already preparing an appraisal of his land to be used in condemnation proceedings.

Woodward said he expects that the appraisals will be too low and vows that he will start a public campaign against the city's upcoming bond program if he isn't treated fairly.

The city hopes to roll $233 million worth of land acquisition and associated costs for the ASU campus into the bond package, which goes before voters in March. If voters don't approve it, it will make it difficult for the city and ASU to build the second phase of the campus, which is expected to have 8,000 students.

Woodward and other landowners wouldn't say specifically what they thought their land is worth. But they think a fair market rate is well over $100 a square foot. They cite recent sales of downtown property that netted $120 to $144 per square foot.

"Why can't the landowners hire their own appraisers to come up with a value that we think is fair?" asked Norman Fox, who owns a 7,250-square-foot parcel along Central Avenue. The land is vacant, but Fox said he had wanted to partner with Olivieri to develop the site. The city has offered him $40 a square foot.

"I am willing to give up the high-rise for the progress," he said. "But don't steal it from me."

Phoenix officials contend that their offers are fair. They believe that all the announcements about downtown, from the university campus to a $600 million renovation of Phoenix Civic Plaza to light rail, have fueled rampant speculation. Officials don't believe they should be victimized by the artificially inflated costs.

But they do say they will continue to negotiate with landowners.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't argue that this condemnation is perfectly legal on behalf of the city, even after the horrible SCOTUS decision.

Um... that would have been legal even BEFORE the SCOTUS decision... or in whatever decade. The city is taking the land for a governmental use (public university).

[ISiddiqui]

Oh, btw, on the 'activist' charges. It seemed interesting that the majority was writing as unactivist as possible, saying it is up to the states to change their laws. Stricking down a law is an activist action.

Public use can be read in both contexts.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh, btw, on the 'activist' charges. It seemed interesting that the majority was writing as unactivist as possible, saying it is up to the states to change their laws. Stricking down a law is an activist action.

In case you haven't figured this out yet, in modern political parlance, activist == I don't like it.

[JeffNights]

Grrr

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

In case you haven't figured this out yet, in modern political parlance, activist == I don't like it.

actually, activist = decision supported by more evil liberals. Conservatives aren't allowed to be called activists... I think it violates their copyright laws or something like that... be careful, we may get sued for unlawful use.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... that would have been legal even BEFORE the SCOTUS decision... or in whatever decade. The city is taking the land for a governmental use (public university).

Umm... perhaps that's why I'm not arguing it.

[albionmoonlight]

Big day today. Up to two possible retirements. File Sharing. Ten Commandments. And some case that I have not been following involving the right to control high speed internet that has the potential to open competition in the area and lower internet rates for all of us.

I imagine that this thread will be going in a few different directions this afternoon:

"All I am saying is that if I want to use Grokster to download clips of myself standing on the Ten Commandments at the courthouse while burning the American Flag, I shouldn't have to worry about the state seizing my house to build a new stripmall while I do it. And I want Bush to appoint someone who agrees with me."

[flere-imsaho]

Breaking news is that the Court has ruled that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed. No details yet.

[flere-imsaho]

Summary from CNN:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

The court's decision was 5-4, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor casting the swing vote.

The decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays -- like their own courtroom frieze -- would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

[flere-imsaho]

Another big ruling:

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ruling Monday that required cable operators to open up their high-speed Internet lines to rivals.

The decision is a big victory for the Federal Communications Commission and major telecommunications companies, including Charter Communications, Time Warner Cable and SBC Communications.

On the losing side are small Internet service providers, including Earthlink, and a host of local governments.

[flere-imsaho]

This is also pretty big:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago -- whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.

The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering.

"Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers.

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Plame's name was first made public in 2003 by columnist Robert Novak, who cited unidentified senior Bush administration officials for the information. The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime and a government investigation is in its second year. No charges have been brought.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, the special counsel handling the probe, told justices that the only unfinished business is testimony from Cooper and Miller.

Cooper reported on Plame, while Miller gathered material for an article about the intelligence officer but never wrote a story.

A federal judge held the reporters in contempt last fall, and an appeals court rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources in the federal criminal proceeding.

Every state but Wyoming recognizes reporters' rights to protect their confidential sources of information, justices were told in a brief filed on behalf of 34 states, and without those privileges "reporters in those states would find their newsgathering abilities compromised, and citizens would find themselves far less able to make informed political, social and economic choices."

But Fitzgerald said in his own filing that the federal government is different. "Local jurisdictions do not have responsibility for investigating crimes implicating national security, and reason and experience strongly counsel against adoption of an absolute reporter's privilege in the federal courts," he said.

In the last journalist source case at the Supreme, the 1972 Branzburg v. Hayes, a divided court ruled against Louisville, Ky., reporter who had written a story about drug trafficking and was called to testify about it. Justices said that requiring journalists to reveal information to grand juries served a "compelling" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment.

That decision has been interpreted differently and clarification is needed because dozens of reporters around the country have been subpoenaed over the past two years, said Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada, representing Time magazine.

The cases are Miller v. United States, 04-1507, and Cooper v. United States, 04-1508.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

"All I am saying is that if I want to use Grokster to download clips of myself standing on the Ten Commandments at the courthouse while burning the American Flag, I shouldn't have to worry about the state seizing my house to build a new stripmall while I do it. And I want Bush to appoint someone who agrees with me."

Nicely done.