Nor shall
Ten years ago tomorrow, the Supreme Court delivered a striking blow to the rights of landowners nationwide in Kelo v. City of New London. In Kelo, the Court held the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment is satisfied if the public receives virtually any benefit as a result of the taking (i.e. private redevelopment=greater tax base). This decision paved the way for the government to condemn private land for private redevelopment (aka the reverse Robinhood- take from the poor to give to the rich).
Today, the Supreme Court issued a resounding win for landowners nationwide holding that the government must pay "just compensation" when it takes personal goods--not just property rights. The case centered on a little known Federal program designed to artificially inflate raisin prices by requiring raisin farmers to forfeit part of their crops.
The program dated back to 1937 (i.e. the Great Depression). What happened to all these forfeited raisins you ask?? They were partly used for school lunch programs. In addition to a victory for property owners, it is also a big victory for U.S. school children across the nation! (In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a huge raisin fan).
The raisin growers in this case refused to participate in the program in 2003 when they would have been forced to forfeit 47 percent of their crops. They faced thousands of dollars in accumulated fines had the case not gone their way.
Nonetheless, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court agreed that the raisin growers could not be forced to forfeit their crop without compensation. Just as the government must compensate individuals for the taking of property rights, the Court held the government must also pay just compensation for the taking of goods.
It will be interesting to see what impact this case will have on eminent domain law in general. It sounds as though this arcane raisin program is unusual and not many other similar programs (if any) are still active. However, the importance is that it shows a general trend in the Courts favoring landowners. Hopefully this trickles down through the Courts and strengthens the general tenet of eminent domain law--if the government takes something it must pay just compensation.
A hot button issue in Wisconsin eminent domain law has been access. A popular term the WisDOT likes to throw around is non-compensable exercise of police power. However, it is indisputable that the WisDOT is taking something (access rights) and just like in the taking of raisins, it should have to pay fair and just compensation for taking such.
private property (Raisins) be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Ten years ago tomorrow, the Supreme Court delivered a striking blow to the rights of landowners nationwide in Kelo v. City of New London. In Kelo, the Court held the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment is satisfied if the public receives virtually any benefit as a result of the taking (i.e. private redevelopment=greater tax base). This decision paved the way for the government to condemn private land for private redevelopment (aka the reverse Robinhood- take from the poor to give to the rich).
Today, the Supreme Court issued a resounding win for landowners nationwide holding that the government must pay "just compensation" when it takes personal goods--not just property rights. The case centered on a little known Federal program designed to artificially inflate raisin prices by requiring raisin farmers to forfeit part of their crops.
The program dated back to 1937 (i.e. the Great Depression). What happened to all these forfeited raisins you ask?? They were partly used for school lunch programs. In addition to a victory for property owners, it is also a big victory for U.S. school children across the nation! (In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a huge raisin fan).
The raisin growers in this case refused to participate in the program in 2003 when they would have been forced to forfeit 47 percent of their crops. They faced thousands of dollars in accumulated fines had the case not gone their way.
Nonetheless, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court agreed that the raisin growers could not be forced to forfeit their crop without compensation. Just as the government must compensate individuals for the taking of property rights, the Court held the government must also pay just compensation for the taking of goods.
It will be interesting to see what impact this case will have on eminent domain law in general. It sounds as though this arcane raisin program is unusual and not many other similar programs (if any) are still active. However, the importance is that it shows a general trend in the Courts favoring landowners. Hopefully this trickles down through the Courts and strengthens the general tenet of eminent domain law--if the government takes something it must pay just compensation.
A hot button issue in Wisconsin eminent domain law has been access. A popular term the WisDOT likes to throw around is non-compensable exercise of police power. However, it is indisputable that the WisDOT is taking something (access rights) and just like in the taking of raisins, it should have to pay fair and just compensation for taking such.