www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall What about our churches?

How will the recent Supreme Court decision affect our churches, many of which are located in business districts of our cities??

Supreme Court rules on property rights
Thursday, June 23, 2005, 2:42 PM

by Gary Truitt

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case weighing the rights of property owners against land developers that local governments are allowed to seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers if it is in the interest of economic development. In a case with far flung implications, the court ruled 5 to 4 against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn. who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.

The majority held that just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latter�s projects also serve a public good.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized."

In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.�

Justice Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice O'Connor's fellow dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The ruling, which could have vast implications for farmers and other land owners, prompted a quick response from Bob Stallman, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation. �Apparently no one�s home, or farm and ranch land, is safe from government seizure because of this ruling,� he said. Keith Olsen, President of the Nebraska Farm Bureau issued a statement saying �We are shocked and disappointed by this ruling. Farm Bureau believes that private property rights are the basis of our prosperity in the U.S. and essential to a free society. Farm Bureau is arguably the biggest defender of private property rights in the country, and we have followed this case closely from its inception.�

The case is Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108. Susette Kelo is one of the property owners who petitioned the courts to block the condemnation of their homes in the Fort Trumbull area of New London.


Gaudior, wondering about our church properties...

That would be our Church properties that are exempt from taxes, and so would be ideal for seizure by a state that wants to make money not only on the sale, but by putting in a tax-paying corporation in their places....


Gaudior, wondering what the Supreme Court was thinking!

GOODNESS GRACIOUS!!!

America needs to have a huge massive protest against the Supreme Court and we must contact all Congress the best we can to tell them that our property rights MUST and WILL be protected!

I understand the demolition of certain buildings for highways, etc. providing the funds for those whose property is taken.

But apparently this ruling seems like they cut off the brakes of the governmental attempts to raze down people's properties. And it seems like they wouldn't have to PAY those people for their losses PLUS relocation cost (including rebuilding properties).

Yikes! Where is this country coming to!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Shane, the question is where has this country gone to, not what it is coming to.


But at least we still have the Byzantium Cafe in Wichita.

According to this outrageous decision, any church property can be taken to produce tax revenue, whether it be by way of condos, shopping centers, or parking lots.

Another sad point regarding this case that began with Connecticut property owners is that on a television interview this evening, one of the homeowners said the government originally offered him $60,000 for his beachfront home and then finally offered $120,000. Similar homes in that area are selling for between $350,000 and $500,000.

(Now does anyone really think we need more liberal judges!!!)

While Justice O'Connor's dissent might suggest this, the majority opinion written by Reagen appointee Justice Stevens is much more narrow. The issue here has to do with "public use". THe state already can seize property - consistent with the fifth amendment (with due process and compensation) - for roads, utilities, government buildings, for removing blight etc. Many states also allow for use aimed at economic evelopment. Stevens upheld the view this state perogative:

The idea that any individual property can be turned over to another indivdual with the aim of generating more revenue is not consistent with Stevens's attention the comprehensive character, and deliberation. Moreover this decision has zero effect on the the states that, unlike CT, proscribe economic development, absent blight, as a criterion for property seizures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301067.html

Personally I don't like the seizures being done here. But the problem here, ISTM, is less the judically restrained SCOTUS decision, than the particular state laws.

UAB here in Birmingham has eminate domain over a lot of property downtown and is gobbleing it up. So in a way it has sort of always been in place through eminate domain.

Our churches are consecrated - chrismated for Holy Services ... this is blasphemy.

It's the same in Knoxville with the University of Tennessee - the original evil empire. I have two degrees from there, so I believe I have a right to criticize it all I want. UT has destroyed more of Knoxville's history than all the other entities in town combined.

If it wasn't for the State of Connecticut buying up the (Ruthenian) old church property (St. Nicholas) in Danbury, they never would have been able to relocate and build the beautiful new church they have on the great location that they were able to buy. The old church sat right in the middle of the campus of Western CT State University.

BTW...the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox parish (Holy Trinity) is literally right around the corner from where St. Nicholas was and they are building a beautiful new wooden church as well in true Carpatho-Rusyn style. Not sure if the state is buying their building, as it's on the fringe of the campus and not in the middle as the Ruthenian parish was.

John K,

I would gather that this purchase was made with the assent of the Church.

Dan L

Dan L.--Yes, the sale, purchase and building of the new church all were approved by and encouraged by Bishop Michael. John

This new ruling seems so un-american