I've been meaning to post this for a couple of days. The Supreme Court heard this case where a group of homeowners in Connecticut are fighting the city's right to move them out of their homes and sell the land to a private developer who may be able to pull jobs into a seriously economically depressed area. Their land has NOT been designated a blight and it is not a public project, but the city feels that better use of the land could significantly increase the tax base.

I thought we'd take a shot at it before the Supreme Court rules.

http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/


New London, Connecticut
Kelo v. New London
Lawsuit Challenging Eminent Domain Abuse in New London, Connecticut

U.S. Supreme Court Argument was February 22, 2005

Susette Kelo received notice of condemnation from the NLDC (New London Development Corporation) the day before Thanksgiving 2000.

Susette Kelo dreamed of owning a home that looked out over the water. She purchased and lovingly restored her little pink house where the Thames River meets the Long Island Sound in 1997, and has enjoyed the great view from its windows ever since. The Dery family, down the street from Susette, has lived in Fort Trumbull since 1895; Matt Dery and his family live next door to his mother and father, whose parents purchased their house when William McKinley was president. The richness and vibrancy of this neighborhood reflects the American ideal of community and the dream of homeownership.

Tragically, the City of New London is turning that dream into a nightmare.

In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next to Fort Trumbull and the City determined that someone else could make better use of the land than the Fort Trumbull residents. The City handed over its power of eminent domain—the ability to take private property for public use—to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. As the Fort Trumbull neighbors found out, when private entities wield government’s awesome power of eminent domain and can justify taking property with the nebulous claim of “economic development,” all homeowners are in trouble.

I have a concentration in my degree for urban planning and we did case studies about this stuff all the freaking time. It's interesting to see how the court will play this one out. Sometimes they're for taking/stealing people's land out from under them, and other times they tell the developers to take a hike.

Apparently the conservative judges ripped into the attourneys for the families and the liberal judges ripped into the attourneys for the city. It appears as though it will be very close.

i don't like that the city can take the land for non public use

I think that the way the law is written now, it would not be legal to take the land from these people. They're basically trying to stretch the meaning of "public use" or "public benefit." I think that if the SC ruled in favor of the city, all developers would have to do is show that any project they build will generate more jobs/income than the houses that currently sit on the land in question. Basically, anything is going to make more money than a house, so all homeowners would be in trouble.

And small business. Sheraton hotels pull in more than Days Inn. Wal-Mart employs more people than a small strip mall.

Yeah, that too. I'm going to be concerned about any Justice that rules in favor of the city, to be quite honest. I don't even see how this is a liberal/conservative issue. We should all be concerned about this as Americans period.

You can count on Scaliathomas finding for the city.

I think one of the big concerns I had/have with getting into urban planning is this very issue of taking or not taking people's land for city/gov't use. I don't recall specific court cases off the top of my head, but there were some instances when the city put forth a pretty good argument for taking a person's land for the betterment (that's a word, right?) of a city. For the most part I'm completely against the taking of private property, but there were times when I was swayed to agree with the city. It's hard to have a mindset on this when the cases vary as much as they do.

Yeah, I read about this. I know a bunch about eniment domain, and I can't even guess which one this way is going to go.

San Jose has the same problem. The San Jose Redevelopment Agency, which was supposed to only be a temporary organization but has turned into a longstanding company turning profit for itself, has been in recent years, using it to declare "blight" areas in order to aquire property to then resell to private developers. They move from one failed project to another, costing taxpayers tons, and living high on the proverbial hog for themselves. Make me want to go back to renting.

Mesa and Tempe are famous for eminent domain abuse. The latest attempt at abusing eminent domain involves the Tempe city government wanting to take land from private industrial businesses and give it to a large development company for a modern strip mall type thing. It's just wrong.

It is wrong. I realize that all laws are subject to interpretation, but one has to believe that when these laws were written, "public benefit" and "public good" meant new roadways or sidewalks and the like. Now it means money. I can understand a city coming in and saying "we're putting a sidewalk on your street and we're taking 4 feet of your front yard for it." but not "we want a new McDonalds and a movie theater so you'll have to move."

I can't believe what some places will do. I remember reading about one case, and I'm sorry but I can't remember where it was, where a home was taken for some absurd project (a strip mall I believe). Anyway, the home was declared "condemned" and the person forced to move even though nothing was wrong with the home. Well, the deal fell through, and the house was sold for pennies on the dollar to a city councilor's brother in law. It was never offered back to the original owner who received next to nothing for it because they condemned it. Oh, it's important to note that nothing was done to the house before the brother in law moved in, so obviously it wasn't really in a state that would warrant condemning it.

I'm suprised no one has come out in defense of the city. The Supreme Court is hearing the case, so there is at least SOME argument for the city. I'm always suprised when the whole board agrees on something.

Hm, that's odd. The condemnee should have been assured just compensation, so I'm surprised that the original owner couldn't buy it back using that money. I wonder how the law has been interpreted on condemnation if the project doesn't occur after the taking.

If someone did that to me, rest assured I'd burn that fucking house to the ground.

I'm sure they were compensated, but no one ever feels what the government gives them a fair amount of money b/c it's never what you could get if you sold your house.

They just need to get a good comdemnation attorney, then.

exactly.

i'm not sure how this one will play out, but the constitutional language is simply, ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." there's a whole lot of room in defining "public use" and "just compensation." fuck, i took an entire class on what "just" is. should be an interesting decision by the Court.

Just so I'm clear, are the homeowners given fair value for their houses when they are asked to leave, or do they simply kick em out with no compensation?

If someone pulled that shit on me, I'd rent a bulldozer and some explosives and drive right to the main city municipal building, leeting them know if my house gets knocked down, then so does theirs.