This decision came down today:

A sharply divided high court ruled by a vote of five to four that local governments do have the right to seize private property against the will of the owner if it leads to economic development that benefits the community.

The decision is expected to give local governments around the country more power to seize homes and businesses for economic growth projects such as shopping malls and hotels that would spur economic development and generate greater tax revenues.

The case stemmed from a dispute in New London, Connecticut, where some local homeowners had filed suit to block the city from seizing their property to build a riverfront hotel and other businesses.

So "economic benefits" of land speculators and developers trump the 4th Amendment.

But wait, there's more:

Wesley Horton is an attorney for the city of New London. He says the Supreme Court ruling will be a boon to spurring economic development in cities around the country.

"Otherwise, all you can do is go into blighted areas, which means you are picking on the poor people, the minority people and this means that economic development can go where it is best to go," he said.

So here is a tacit admission that what they are doing -- the government's siezing of private property -- is in fact "picking on" homeowners. Obviously he's not experienced at spin.

Writing for the court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens supported the right of the city to seize property and said local officials know best about which economic development projects will benefit their community.

Writing for the minority side, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor countered that cities should not have unlimited power to uproot families and that the main beneficiaries of the ruling will be wealthy developers and corporations who back the development projects.

There it is, folks: The government knows best. Forget this freedom stuff. Forget self-determination. If you got something that a developer who's been buying politicians wants, guess what? It's not yours any more! Siding with O'Connor in dissent were Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. I can tell you, I've often liked O'Connor's decisions, but it's a rare day indeed when I agree with the angry activist boys.

Newsday has other reactions:

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word." -New London resident Bill Von Winkle, reacting to the Supreme Court decision.

"It was the worst decision that I've ever had to make in my life, but I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city that's only six and a half square miles, with no where to go." -State Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, former New London mayor and member of the city council who voted in favor of eminent domain.

(Crocodile tears.)

"Their opinion obviously upholds the fact that economic development is considered a public use. I'm glad for the city because now the city can move forward with development. But, I feel very sad for the people whose homes are there and now will sell their properties and move on." -State Sen. Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford, whose district includes New London.

"I'm concerned that some cities will treat this as a license to steal and will become even more aggressive in taking private property to give it to a preferred developer." -House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford.

It sure seems like the Democrats came out on the wrong side of this one.

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.