New London Decision on Urban America and the Suburban Fringes
D.C. firms new briefing paper concludes that Economic Development Takings will disenfranchise homeowners, small businesses and residential tenants in Americas homes, row houses, and office parks.
Washington, D.C. (PRWEB) June 30, 2005 -- A new briefing paper titled, Private Property Rights Under Siege: Has The Mere Suggestion of Economic Development Greased the Skids for Private Land Grabs in America concludes that as a result the landmark decision in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108 (U.S. June 23, 2005) (New London), eminent domain abuse by state and local governments is likely to surge except in those jurisdictions where economic development takings are expressly prohibited by state law.
Prepared by Rawle Andrews Jr., Esq., and Leroy Jones, Jr., JD in the DC Office of Andrews & Bowe, PLLP, the report examines: (1) the adverse impact of economic development takings on the American Dream; (2) the historical limits on condemnation law under the U.S. Constitution; (3) the significance of the Michigan Supreme Courts recent rejection of the controversial Poletown decision; (4) the Five Stages of Involuntary Home Loss; and (5) the vital importance of increased political action by homeowners, entrepreneurs and residential tenants at the planning commission and city council level before land development proposals are approved, as well as the early retention of professionals (e.g., attorneys, accountants and appraisers) to preserve private property rights under federal and state law.
The premise of the paper is that the only legitimate means to stave off (or at least soften the blow) of these looming, multi-state land grabs is for homeowners and small business owners to forge coalitions to ensure that elected officials actually are accountable to the people when purportedly acting in the public interest. Lest we forget, the power to take is not a requirement to take, and early retirement for tone-deaf politicians is only an election away.