Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004

Home

washingtonpost.com: Justices To Heat' Property Case Page 1 of 3 washingtonpost.com Justices To Hear Property Case fndividual Rights At Issue in Corm. By' Charles Lane WashingTon Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A07 The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will decide whether the Constitution permits governments to transfer property from one private owner to another in the name of creating jobs and tax revenue -- a case that could affect local economic development policy and individual property., rights nationwide. R. eturnlns ah:er a summer recess to the am-tual task or petitions that have accumulated residents say their constitutional rights would se violated by the pove~v-stricken ci~'s plans to buy UP their homes ~nd move them out retail complex. . Separately, the court said disabled peosle access to public accommodations, the Americans With Disabilities Act. applies to cruise shios in U.S. waters -- which serve millions of U.S. citizens a year but are reaistered in foreian countries. And the COLnX took on a potentially significant issue of election law, agreeing to decide whether states may restrict pa~icipafion in the polk/cai paMes' primaw e[ecti~ns to registered pa~/members plus ~ndependents. The Constitution's Fifth Amendment has long given local governments the right to condemn private property and take it for a "public use," such as bridge or highway construction, in return tbr what the amendment calls "just compensation." In 1954, the Supreme Court interpreted thai !anguage to permk the use of eminent domain clearing blighted or neglected private property. The court ioosened the standard further in 1984. Lirn ired lkelease But the court's decision to take the New London' case may signal concern by some jusuces that local governments have gone too tar. The city., government makes no claim ttnat the property it wants to transfer to developers is blighted or neglected. The city simply says that it can be put to a much better use, with widely shared benefits. The !and in question is adjacent to a new research faciliw belonging to pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Cop., and th.e new upscate nousm~, retail aha other ' "'~ Z~ ' ' ~. ' Otthd,n_. were planned to er&anco the area for Pfizer workers and visitors. in a 4 to 3 decision earlier this year, the Connecticut Supreme Court sided with New London, ruling that the city had acted constitutionally because its intent was to benefit the public. in its petition .ur'zint~ the U.S. Supreme Cou~ to let that ruling stand. New London cited its 1954 and i984 120