What are our rights as land owners under the U S Constitution?

Answer 1

AnswerYour rights are protected by the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment which states private property shall not be taken without just compensation. The power of government to take your land is called Eminent Domain. Your rights as a landowner under the United States Constitution have been drastically reduced during the reign of the present Supreme Court by the worst decision rendered in the last decade.

The framer's of the Constitution created a scheme by which land could be taken only if the taking served a public use. They were, of course, thinking of roads, public buildings, parks, and bridges. Being not long from the feudal system in England, the uses they carefully allowed were uses that benefitted the general public and were for facilities that would be owned by the general public, including the landowner.

In a 1954 case, Berman v Parker, the Supreme Court expanded the right of taking for eminent domain by including economic development. The District of Colombia was granted the right to take privately owned, blighted property, and transfer it to a private developer for redevelopment. The neighborhood was blighted beyond repair and reportedly a disease ridden slum. The decision allowed non-blighted property (a store) situated within a blighted area to be included in the taking.

Berman was used in 2005 to allow the city of New London, Connecticut to condemn a 90 acre blue collar, residential neighborhood and turn the land over to a private developer for $1 to build a luxury waterfront hotel, office space and high end housing. In Kelo v City of New London, the owners eventually lost their last appeal (to the Supreme Court of our land) and Kelo's lovely little waterfront home, and others, were demolished. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion for the Court which found the gift to the private developer to be a legitimate public use and thus the Supreme Court provided even broader latitude for the government to take your land. The neighborhood in New London was razed, the land was cleared and to this day it remains a wasteland. The developer's plan was unrealistic, the national economic crisis brought big-time developers somewhat back to earth, and the plan was never carried out.

Since Kelo, many states have reacted by passing legislation to prevent eminent domain takings of that tragic latitude. However, many states have not. A fight is brewing in Brooklyn at the World Trade Center site by a politically connected developer, Bruce Ratner, who wants to add six more acres to the site for development. As part of the taking, he wants the home of a private citizen, who owns a $600,000 condominium, in order to build a Basketball stadium, offices, high rise apartments and a hotel. In Goldstein v New York State Urban Development Corporation, New York's highest court has ratified the taking.

In an interesting (Freudian?) slip during an interview, Ratner was repeatedly asked why he would not show the plans for the project in light of the world-wide financial crises that has dampened or terminated all large scale projects around the world. People are understandably concerned the project won't come to fruition for the purposes of the taking much like the New London tragedy. Ratner reportedly replied, "Why should people get to see the plans? This isn't a public project. We will follow the guidelines."

Very interesting. This is a perfect example of how the Court, by its interpretation of the Constitution, creates law.