Rhetoric 3266

« Downtown Minneapolis condo trend is booming | Main | Does Race Matter in Biomedical Research? »

June 27, 2005

Cities get more power to seize homes

Star Tribune Washington Bureau

This article was announcing a new, sharply divided Supreme Court ruling that extended the eminent domain powers and is considered a victory for city planners and local officals (5-4 ruling). Clancy mentioned this ruling has been around for some time, but now local governments can condem private property and convert it to a more profitable use -- however that is defined.

Ryan had read the article and had good input and knowledge abou the subject, as he readily knew it was a new Supreme Court ruling. The article further stated that now based on this ruling that every house in the U.S. is for sale, whether you know or want it.

A specific case mentioned in that properties can now be condemned by their local government for 'public purposes' or if the property promises a 'public benefit'. One side of the argument is that you can create better economic development by building racetracks, manufacturing plants, etc. thereby employing more persons in the local area. Again I see this ruling as a warning to working-class middle America as it seems to be focused on this particular group.

Another point made in the article is that those who will benefit most are again, citizens that already have the influence and power in the political arena -- including large corporations and development firms.

A local example included that in 2002 the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) threatened to condem a 3-acre site so a privately owned housing development could be built. Rather than have his property condemn,ed the owner gave in and sold his property.

What do you think about this new ruling? And what about the previous ruling that suggested "promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of the government?"