Eminent Domain, Part II

ou folks might as well get used to it. This topic is going to be covered extensively here. What is happening in New London, CT is an abomination. Vilmar summed it up nicely yesterday with excerpts from an excellent article by Jeff Jacoby. The Supreme Court heard arguments last week and is deliberating now before delivering an opinion. Make no mistake, this will be a critical decision and will affect all of us. Here it is in a nutshell ....

■ The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution contain clauses prohibiting the federal or state governments from seizing your property without due process of law, meaning the government has to have a valid, legal reason for taking your property and has to reimburse you fairly for the theft.

■ In a 1954 decision (Berman v. Parker) the Supreme Court handed down a decision that opened up a can of worms. The decision basically said that urban blight is sufficient reason for government to condemn a piece of property and force the owner to sell the property to the government for cleanup to be put to better use.

■ However, in the fifty years since this decision, the state and local governments around the country have gradually broadened the definition of “eminent domain” as it is called to include all manner of reasons to condemn a person’s property and take it from them, at substantially lower than market value in some cases. In other words, the crooks at City Hall have gotten greedier and greedier.

■ In New London, CT, the city decided to take some property because (hold on to your hat) the property could be used for an office development that would generate more revenue for the city. In point of fact, the “office development” is only in the “wishful thinking” stage but the city wants the property now .... so they condemned it.

■ I’ve seen pictures of the property owner’s house in a recent issue of Time Magazine. Susette Kelo owns a very pretty, well-kept home. For the city to condemn this property is an affront to all sensible people in this country. It is theft, pure and simple. By government. Of a citizen’s house and home. For profit. Outrage.

I urge you to go read the Merit Briefs on this case at the American Bar Association’s web site. I cannot tell you how critical this ruling will be. In fact, I’ll just let you read the closing argument of the attorney for the homeowners in his Petitioner’s Reply Brief ....

A ruling in favor of the homeowners will not disturb the general course of development throughout the country. On the other hand, a ruling in favor of the Respondents will change the law dramatically for home and business owners. Every home and every business, everywhere in the country, will be subject to condemnation if a local government prefers some other private party’s use of the property. Or, as counsel for the NLDC (New London Development Corporation) put it recently, “We need to get housing at the upper end, for people like the Pfizer employees. . . . They are the professionals, they are the ones with the expertise and the leadership qualities to remake the city – the young urban professionals who will invest in New London, put their kids in school, and think of this as a place to stay for 20 or 30 years.” Iver Peterson, There Goes the Old Neighborhood, to Revitalization, The New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005, at A25. The condemnations in this case are an act of raw preference for one type of people, one type of housing, and higher tax dollars over the current residents. Cities may seek wealthy residents and higher taxes, but they cannot do so at the expense of constitutional rights. The ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court paves the way for increasing use of eminent domain for private development. This Court should resist Respondents’ urging to read public use out of the Constitution and thereby fundamentally alter the rights of all property owners in the United States.

Posted by The Skipper     on 03/01/2005 at 01:10 AM

1. In Jeff Jacoby’s article, this statement caught my eye:

   “But that isn’t why New London wants to tear down the 112-year-old Victorian that Susette Kelo worked so hard to renovate, or the house at Walbach and East streets where Wilhelmina Dery has lived for all of her 87 years.”

   A number of years ago, there was quite a stink in Massa2shits about people wanting to renovate old houses - especially those 100 years old or older.
   They were declared ‘historical’ or ‘heritage’ homes and were subject to some pretty stringent LAWS governing the changing of the outward appearances of the homes.

   Aside from the obvious legal atrocity being perpetuated here, would these people not be able to contact their Historical Society or whatever, and get the properties listed as such - if they aren’t already?

   This is soooo bizarre.

   -Dan D,
   Canuckistan

   (PS - Jeff Jacoby is the same guy that wrote “Arafat The Monster” on 11/11/04 in the Boston Globe while the rest of the MSM was praising the prick.)

   Posted by Dan D     on 03/01/2005  at  04:14 AM (ET)

2. “The condemnations in this case are an act of raw preference for one type of people, one type of housing, and higher tax dollars over the current residents. Cities may seek wealthy residents and higher taxes....”

   If I were one of those potential “wealthy residents,” and I saw the city seize the site of my potential residence from someone else, I would ask myself, “If they took it from Joe today, what is to keep them from taking it from me tomorrow?  All they care about is the taxes they can squeeze out of this property, anyway.  What happens when a higher bidder comes along?....”

   If I were a resident looking on from some other neighborhood, I would ask myself, “What is to keep some property looter from showing up here tomorrow and pulling the same trick on me?  I had better pull up stakes while I can still get something out of my property.  Once the panic starts, then....”

   What I want to know is, where are the realtors on this?  Where are the responsible developers?  Where is anyone with any vested interest in the stability of property values?  If safe ownership of the property cannot be assumed, then....

   

   Posted by Tannenberg     on 03/01/2005  at  08:58 AM (ET)

3. Well, After reading the briefs, there is all kinds of ways the Supreme’s could rule on this. I have concerns because Renquist is currently not hearing any cases. He tends to be a strict reader of the constitution and his presence on the court would help.
   Anyway, the ruling should come out in 3 to 6 months. Will need to keep our eyes open for it.

   Posted by LC Geno     on 03/01/2005  at  11:26 AM (ET)

<< Back to main