The United States Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city government can seize people's homes and businesses for any lawful purpose including private development.
The final vote was 5-4. The decision has far reaching implications especially in cities and towns that are rapidly rebuilding areas.
The case involved residents of New London, Connecticut whose homes were slated for destruction by their local government so a riverfront hotel, health club and an office complex could be built there.
The citizens argued that it was improper for the government to seize their property unless the project they were taking it for had a clear public use or benefit such as a school, a road or to revitalize an area full of urban blight.
The court disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens 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.'
Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined with Stevens in the majority decision.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a stinging dissent. She feared that local governments could be influenced by wealthy businesses who want to make higher profits and can afford large donations to candidates. She wrote, '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.'
Joining O'Connor in her dissent were Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
