JUSTICE O'CONNOR: For example, Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we
would have higher taxes. Now, is that okay?
MR. HORTON: Yes, Your Honor. That would be okay. I -- because otherwise you're in the
position of drawing the line.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Horton, you're paying for it, but you're also taking property from somebody
who doesn't want to sell it. Does that count for nothing? Yes, you're paying for it, but you're
giving the money to somebody who doesn't want the money, who wants to live in the house that she's lived in her whole life. That counts for nothing?
MR. HORTON: No, of course not, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: What this lady wants is not more money. No amount of money is going to satisfy
her. She is living in this house, you know, her whole life and she does not want to move. She
said I'll move if it's being taken for a public use, but by God, you're just giving it to some
other private individual because that individual is going to pay more taxes. I -- it seems to me
that's, that's an objection in principle, and an objection in principle that the public use
requirement of the Constitution seems to be addressed to.
MR. BULLOCK: Your Honors, first of all, just a couple of matters regarding the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision. The Connecticut Supreme Court did not apply the test that we suggest in our case, they explicitly, the majority explicitly declined to apply heightened scrutiny in this, in this instance. I think the key to understanding their argument is the answer to the question of, can you take a Motel 6 and give it to a fancier hotel? Their answer is yes. And that's what's really at stake here. These condemnations are taking place throughout the country. A city in California condemns the 99 cents store in order to give it to Costco. Now, were they giving enormous benefits to Costco? Of course they were. But they did so because they wanted to get the tax revenue, and that's the problem with these types of condemnations, the desire to help a private party and the desire to help the public are really one and the same.
....And finally, Your Honors, the Respondents talk about the effect that this may have upon poor people. Not all neighborhoods, not all poor neighborhoods are blighted. But the one thing that all poor neighborhoods share in common is that they don't produce much in the way of tax revenue, so you're going to put poor neighborhoods and working class neighborhoods like the ones that exist in Fort Trumbull in jeopardy if the Court affirms the decision below. And that's why so many organizations that are concerned about the rights of senior citizens and the rights of minorities and poor folks like legal services corporations have joined in our side to support the property owners in this case.
