Four years after the worst USSC ruling in a century New London property sits mostly empty

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/n...developed_200909250600
Eminent domain land sits undeveloped

Updated: Friday, 25 Sep 2009, 6:04 AM EDT
Published : Friday, 25 Sep 2009, 6:01 AM EDT

* KATIE NELSON ,Associated Press Writer

New London (AP) - Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation's most notorious eminent domain project.

There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne's lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot's towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.

But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing.

Proponents of the ambitious plan blame the sour economy. Opponents call it a "poetic justice."

"They are getting what they deserve. They are going to get nothing," said Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the landmark property rights case. "I don't think this is what the United States Supreme Court justices had in mind when they made this decision."

Kelo's iconic pink home sat for more than a century on that currently empty lot, just steps away from Connecticut's quaint but economically distressed Long Island Sound waterfront. Shortly after she moved in, in 1997, her house became ground zero in the nation's best-known land rights catfight.

New London officials decided they needed Kelo's land and the surrounding 90 acres for a multimillion-dollar private development that included residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park that would compliment a new $350 million Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility.

Kelo and six other homeowners fought for years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, justices voted 5-4 against them, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development.

The decision was sharply criticized and created grassroots backlash. Forty states quickly passed new, protective rules and regulations, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some protesters even tried to turn the tables on now-retired Justice David Souter, trying unsuccessfully in 2006 to take his New Hampshire home by eminent domain to build an inn.

In New London the city's prized economic development plan has fallen apart as the economy crumbled.

The Corcoran Jennison Cos., a Boston-based developer, had originally locked in exclusive rights to develop nearly the entire northern half of the Fort Trumbull peninsula.

But those rights expired in June 2008, despite multiple extensions, because the firm was unable to secure financing, according to President Marty Jones.

In July, backers halted fundraising for the project's crown jewel, a proposed $60 million, 60,000-square-foot Coast Guard museum.

The poor economy meant that donations weren't "keeping pace with expenses," said Coast Guard Foundation president Anne Brengle.

The group hopes to resume fundraising in the future, she said.

Overall, proponents say about two-thirds of the 90-acre site is developed, in part because of a 16-acre, $25 million state park. The other third of the land remains without the promised residential housing, office buildings, shops and hotel/conference center facility.

"If there had been no litigation, which took years to work its way through (the court system), then a substantial portion of this project would be constructed by now," said John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp. "But we are victims of the economic cycle, and there is nothing we can do about that."

A new engineering tenant is moving into one of the office buildings at 1 Chelsea St., and a bio tech firm with as many as five employees is getting ready to move into an existing building on Howard Street, Brooks said.

Kelo, paid $442,000 by the state for her old property, now lives across the Thames River in Groton, in a white, two-bedroom 1950s bungalow. Her beloved pink house was sold for a dollar and moved less than two miles away, where a local preservationist has refurbished it.

Kelo can see her old neighborhood from her new home, but she finds the view too painful to bear.

"Everything is different, but everything is like still the same," said Kelo, who works two jobs and has largely maintained a low profile since moving away. "You still have life to deal with every day of the week. I just don't have eminent domain to deal with every day of the week, even after I ate, slept and breathed it for 10 years."

Although her side lost, Kelo said she sees the wider ramifications of her property rights battle.

"In the end it was seven of us who fought like wild animals to save what we had," she said. "I think that though we ultimately didn't win for ourselves, it has brought attention to what they did to us, and if it can make it better for some other people so they don't lose their homes to a Dunkin' Donuts or a Wal-Mart, I think we did some good."

Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, argued Kelo's case before the Supreme Court. He calls "massive changes that have happened in the law and in the public consciousness" the "real legacy" of Kelo and the other plaintiffs.

The empty land means the city won a "hollow victory," he said.

"What cities should take from this is to run fleeing from what New London did and do economic development that is market-driven and incorporate properties of folks who are truly committed to their neighborhood and simply want to be a part of what happens," he said.

Serves the greedy bastards right. I hope that the city of New London and the developers involved in this mess NEVER recoup the costs involved with using the law to steal those people's land and homes.

The only good thing to come of the entire mess was that other states have enacted laws to prevent similar things from happening there.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I don't think greed is the issue. This is an example of government unnecessarily interfering with the markets.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Originally posted by: Craig234
Bush v. Gore.

That was an excellent ruling.

Back to the thread topic: the ruling by the court was correct, it's the legislators that need to fix the problem. The court is not there to make law, just to interpret the law. They ruled correctly, but I disagree 100% with the law.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: Craig234
Bush v. Gore.

That was an excellent ruling.

Back to the thread topic: the ruling by the court was correct, it's the legislators that need to fix the problem. The court is not there to make law, just to interpret the law. They ruled correctly, but I disagree 100% with the law.

Thread topic: "the worst USSC ruling in a century". Don't use the phrase if you don't want it challenged when misused - just discuss eminent domain in that case.

You actually hit 50% on this one 'PokerGuy', the constitution allows for Eminent Domain, and the 'judicial activism' is for the courts to ignore the law and say it doesn't.

Excellent ruling - that's a quite ignorant statement. The issue has been discussed ad nauseeum, so you have no interest in the truth if you still say that.

The democratic process allows the people to limit the use of eminent domain if they want to, and they have many places.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
Bush v. Gore.

As much as I disliked Bush as a president I feel that the New London ruling is far, FAR worse.
The city essentially used eminent domain to steal land from the homeowners and sell it for a profit/private use (with the exception of the state park portion). Quit being a tool Craig.

Infohawk: It does boil down to greed. The city of New London was greedy for the expected tax revenue that the private development of the property would bring in.

PokerGuy: So you are for the courts upholding a bad law that hurts the citizens and rewards the people that are hurting them?


 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
PokerGuy: So you are for the courts upholding a bad law that hurts the citizens and rewards the people that are hurting them?

If by "bad law" you mean has an unfair outcome but isn't unconstitutional? damn straight. It's not the court's job to throw out laws they disagree with

I'm not touching the "worst decision in a century". That's another entire thread.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
PokerGuy: So you are for the courts upholding a bad law that hurts the citizens and rewards the people that are hurting them?

If by "bad law" you mean has an unfair outcome but isn't unconstitutional? damn straight. It's not the court's job to throw out laws they disagree with

I'm not touching the "worst decision in a century". That's another entire thread.

That was the crux of the issue, if using ED to take people's property, sell it to private developers, and use the tax revenue generated by all of it as the "public good" that was being done.

I disagree with the ruling as that I don't believe that tax revenue for the city counts as "public good". I feel that only a direct use of the land for public benefit should be allowed, ie. roads, fire station, public hospital, etc.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
It was a very bad interpretation of the ED law and I agree with CrackRabbit on this. How anyone could be happy with this SC ruling baffles me.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
PokerGuy: So you are for the courts upholding a bad law that hurts the citizens and rewards the people that are hurting them?

If by "bad law" you mean has an unfair outcome but isn't unconstitutional? damn straight. It's not the court's job to throw out laws they disagree with

I'm not touching the "worst decision in a century". That's another entire thread.

That was the crux of the issue, if using ED to take people's property, sell it to private developers, and use the tax revenue generated by all of it as the "public good" that was being done.

I disagree with the ruling as that I don't believe that tax revenue for the city counts as "public good". I feel that only a direct use of the land for public benefit should be allowed, ie. roads, fire station, public hospital, etc.

exactly. it was never the intention of the ED law to allow PRIVATE property to be taken and given to another PRIVATE individual or business.

The courts screwed up on the rulling. it makes me very happy to see that the bastards who made the goverment take the land not having enough to build it.

hope the property sits empty for years. fuck the city on the tax money and fuck the developer for takeing it.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Wait, when was the corporate personhood ruling?

Turn of the century I believe.

Bush vs. Gore may have been an acceptable ruling by the letter of the law, but knowing what we know now, it was a terrible decision for the US.
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't think greed is the issue. This is an example of government unnecessarily interfering with the markets.

Greed was entirely the issue, just who's greed? In this case it was the city because the city was greedy for additional tax revenue.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Originally posted by: Craig234
Bush v. Gore.

As much as I disliked Bush as a president I feel that the New London ruling is far, FAR worse.
The city essentially used eminent domain to steal land from the homeowners and sell it for a profit/private use (with the exception of the state park portion). Quit being a tool Craig.

Learn to discuss issus without being an ass.

Eminent domain exists for the government to take private property for the public good.

You don't like that the meaning of public good was expanded beyond where you want to include the economic development of the community drawing tourists.

In comparison, Bush v. Gore was effectively a coup whereby the very election of the President of the Unisted States was seized from the people.

The decision was so bad - based on the lack of consistent standards between counties that exists in every state in the nation and is ignored in every other instand - that it's the reportedly only decision in history in which the Supreme Court explicitly said that it cannot be used in any way for precedent, the principles they cited are only for that one instance.

I'd say that that's a hell of a lot worse. You can disagree.

Infohawk: It does boil down to greed. The city of New London was greedy for the expected tax revenue that the private development of the property would bring in.

PokerGuy: So you are for the courts upholding a bad law that hurts the citizens and rewards the people that are hurting them?


[/quote]

 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
There's usually nothing wrong with Eminent domain (when it's used to build public roads or something similar).

For private development? hell no.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Originally posted by: Craig234
Bush v. Gore.

As much as I disliked Bush as a president I feel that the New London ruling is far, FAR worse.
The city essentially used eminent domain to steal land from the homeowners and sell it for a profit/private use (with the exception of the state park portion). Quit being a tool Craig.

Learn to discuss issus without being an ass.

Eminent domain exists for the government to take private property for the public good.

You don't like that the meaning of public good was expanded beyond where you want to include the economic development of the community drawing tourists.

In comparison, Bush v. Gore was effectively a coup whereby the very election of the President of the Unisted States was seized from the people.

The decision was so bad - based on the lack of consistent standards between counties that exists in every state in the nation and is ignored in every other instand - that it's the reportedly only decision in history in which the Supreme Court explicitly said that it cannot be used in any way for precedent, the principles they cited are only for that one instance.

I'd say that that's a hell of a lot worse. You can disagree.

[/quote]

Economic development of the community is one thing, using the law to steal someone land for that economic development is flat out wrong.

As for Bush, that nightmare is over, and there is someone in the White House who won fair and square by a handy electoral margin.
Get over the fact that Gore lost, and try focusing on how we can repair the damage that was done and move forward as a country.
Dwelling on the past about a decision that you yourself said can't be used as precedent for future cases is stupid.


 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Regardless of a comma in the 5th Amendment 'Takings Clause' I think the Majority decision was correct. I think Kennedy's concurring opinion is informative.
I think that it would be wise to look at this issue not as having to meet minimum scrutiny which came to mean the government purpose only had to be 'conceivable' but to leave it to a question of fact. Why not let the trier of fact determine each case. Local jury, local site, local decision.
Stevens majority opinion with Souter, Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer concurring seems to indicate a left leaning type decision but like Mal Practice issues It ought to be for the State or as in this case the city.

I think society benefits even though one person loses [cept they did get value].

Regarding Bush v Gore, Souter's dissenting opinion says it all... the issue should have been sent back to Florida to recount in a consistent manner and if they failed to get it done it goes to the Congress.... Just like the Constitution says to do. This was a case where there was an Equal Protection violation - the various counting methods - but that is all...

Edit: Bush would have still become President so no real change but the SCOTUS did not have a horse in this race.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Heh... so how much tax revenue is New London getting from that property? ;)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: nutxo
Yep. Now this evil corporation can abuse the system unchecked.

yeap. and people bitch about walmart when costco is far worse.

No, Costco is far better on much larger issues than this, like their labor policies.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Originally posted by: Craig234
Bush v. Gore.

As much as I disliked Bush as a president I feel that the New London ruling is far, FAR worse.
The city essentially used eminent domain to steal land from the homeowners and sell it for a profit/private use (with the exception of the state park portion). Quit being a tool Craig.

Learn to discuss issus without being an ass.

Eminent domain exists for the government to take private property for the public good.

You don't like that the meaning of public good was expanded beyond where you want to include the economic development of the community drawing tourists.

In comparison, Bush v. Gore was effectively a coup whereby the very election of the President of the Unisted States was seized from the people.

The decision was so bad - based on the lack of consistent standards between counties that exists in every state in the nation and is ignored in every other instand - that it's the reportedly only decision in history in which the Supreme Court explicitly said that it cannot be used in any way for precedent, the principles they cited are only for that one instance.

I'd say that that's a hell of a lot worse. You can disagree.

Infohawk: It does boil down to greed. The city of New London was greedy for the expected tax revenue that the private development of the property would bring in.

PokerGuy: So you are for the courts upholding a bad law that hurts the citizens and rewards the people that are hurting them?

[/quote]

so let me get a feel for what you are saying here....are you saying that this was not the worst ruling...ever?

and are you saying that this particular ruling was acceptable?

 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: nutxo
Yep. Now this evil corporation can abuse the system unchecked.

yeap. and people bitch about walmart when costco is far worse.

No, Costco is far better on much larger issues than this, like their labor policies.

disagree. i think that stealing land from private business and homeowners is far worse then limiting people to part time or a few hours under full time and low pay.

costco has stolen land hundreds fo times. put hundreds of business under doing it and forced people to move out of houses they have lived for years.

it should be noted they have the goverment CONDEMN the property. Where they owner does not get as much since its considered blighted and its faster for the goverment to do.