Michigan law aids owner in land use
High court backs state constitution
June 24, 2005
BY JOHN GALLAGHER
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER
Michigan property owners have nothing to fear from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday that allows governments to seize private property against an owner's will in the name of economic development.
Even as the court allowed the City of New London, Conn., to displace homeowners for a new mixed-use waterfront project, it acknowledged that individual states have the right to erect tougher standards than the one applied in the Connecticut case.
It then cited Michigan's Supreme Court ruling of a year ago that barred Wayne County from seizing homes south of Metro Airport for an industrial park. That case, known as Wayne County v. Hathcock after one of the local homeowners, held that the state's 1963 constitution bars such seizures for economic development.
"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in Thursday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London.
=[snip]===[full article linked below]=====
Sidebar to the article:
Significant takings cases
1981: The Michigan Supreme Court rules in the famous Poletown case that Detroit can displace a neighborhood so General Motors can build an auto plant.
2004: In Wayne County v. Hathcock, Michigan Supreme Court reverses its prior Poletown ruling, saying seizures for economic development purposes violate the state's constitution.
2005: In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court says cities may take private property for economic development, but that states can erect tougher barriers as Michigan did in the Hathcock ruling.
=====
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
