Homeowners Say Goodbye

Homeowners can say goodbye to the notion that their property rights mean something. In a decision released today,

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

So, basically, if the city decides they need to build a strip mall where your house stands, your permission to tear down your house and build it is not required. Interestingly, it is the liberal wing of the court, typically expected to stand up for the little guy, in the majority and the conservatives, typically expected to stand up for business, who dissented.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"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."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Arguing with Signposts has a sampling of reaction.