USA today
In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free."
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free."
Lawyers that work for the city.Mr. Sparkle wrote:Original Article cited by this OP-Ed.
Rabble Rousing as per usual.
The New London Development Corps. Lawyers sent those letters... over a year ago... not the city.
They work for a company that was awarded land by the city.noxiousdog wrote:Lawyers that work for the city.Mr. Sparkle wrote:Original Article cited by this OP-Ed.
Rabble Rousing as per usual.
The New London Development Corps. Lawyers sent those letters... over a year ago... not the city.
I have no idea how they were set up... but they are a corporation with a board of directors, that does not appear to be under any control of the city government. I can't find anything on their website about it. But if you have a source, I'd gladly read it.Poleaxe wrote:The stroies I've read seem to indicate that the New London Dev Corp was formed by the city.
How can you pay the people if they won't accept the money? I believe the 7 homeowners are holding out for 2003 or more recent money instead of 2000 real estate prices.Fretmute wrote:The article mentions that the homeowners haven't been paid. I ask again: how can they transfer the land with no compensation?Mr. Sparkle wrote:This is a dispute over land that was legally transferred to another party...
From USA Today:Mr. Sparkle wrote:I have no idea how they were set up... but they are a corporation with a board of directors, that does not appear to be under any control of the city government. I can't find anything on their website about it. But if you have a source, I'd gladly read it.Poleaxe wrote:The stroies I've read seem to indicate that the New London Dev Corp was formed by the city.
But wasn't one of the whole points that city was giving land to a private corporation for development?
You can cite this as an example of why the city shouldn't have done it... but it was long since done, and the city itself out of the picture.
This is a dispute over land that was legally transferred to another party... it doesn't have anything to do with the city government anymore... though if they are smart, they will certainly intervene and try to act as a mediator.
From your OPed:(The city's development corporation gained title to the homes when it condemned them, though the owners refused to sell and haven't collected a cent.)
from Their WebsiteThe New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires.
NLDC's Development Partners
State of Connecticut
Pfizer Inc
New London, Connecticut
A key to the NLDC's success in redeveloping New London is the financial and technical support it receives from the State of Connecticut. Under the leadership of Governor John Rowland, and with the continuing support of the Connecticut General Assembly, the state of Connecticut has directed tens of millions of dollars into New London's revitalization efforts. Support for the development of the Pfizer Global Development Facility and the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Project also reflect the state's commitment to the development and support of the State's Biotechnology Clusters in New London.
Seeing an opportunity, the city of New London reactivated the New London Development Corporation, a private entity under the control of the city government, to consider plans to redevelop the Fort Trumbull neighborhood and encourage new economic activities that might be brought in by the Pfizer plant.
If the principle behind Kelo is constitutionally valid (not that my opinion matters, but I believe it to be so under pre-Kelo precedent), this is a perfectly acceptable tactic for the city's attorneys to employ.Poleaxe wrote:I don't think we want local govt. playing hardball with it's citizens for economic gain.Tareeq wrote:Honestly I don't see the big deal. This just looks like a bit of hardball negotiating tactics to me.
Politics are also hardball, which brings me back to my origional question: why hasn't public sentiment risen up to put the stink-eye on this whole deal?Tareeq wrote:If the principle behind Kelo is constitutionally valid (not that my opinion matters, but I believe it to be so under pre-Kelo precedent), this is a perfectly acceptable tactic for the city's attorneys to employ.Poleaxe wrote:I don't think we want local govt. playing hardball with it's citizens for economic gain.Tareeq wrote:Honestly I don't see the big deal. This just looks like a bit of hardball negotiating tactics to me.
Litigation is hardball. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch with the puppies.
Damned if I know, but every member of the New London city council is a yankee. The only behavior that would surprise me would be if they didn't take the opportunity to act in the fashion of jackasses.Poleaxe wrote:Politics are also hardball, which brings me back to my origional question: why hasn't public sentiment risen up to put the stink-eye on this whole deal?
Money paragraph:Enough wrote:Here is a response from the NLDC on the use of eminent domain (it's a MS Word document).
If you don't want this to happen in your town, then contact your state representative and see how emminent domain is worded in your Constitution and ensure that it protects you from private developers.Certainly, anyone would sympathize with a property owner who is forced to give up a home in which he or she resides. However, the reality of Fort Trumbull is that a minority of the Supreme Court plaintiffs are owners who occupied properties owned by them. The other plaintiffs were absentee property owners. Initially, all property owners sought to secure compensation for these properties over and above the amount initially offered (the highest of two independent appraisals). The reality of eminent domain disputes is that they are usually fought over money rather than rights. Any review of public policy involving eminent domain must recognize the difference between disputes over money and disputes over rights, and address each separately. By addressing money issues and compensation levels, public policy makers have the potential to ease the burden on the property owner and limit the use of eminent domain. However there is no remedy, short of eliminating the power of eminent domain, to appease the handful of owners who are so attached to their properties that no amount of money would ease their anxiety of having to leave. These property owners command great sympathy and ultimately force the public policy decision on eminent domain. The courts have decided that it is legal for a government to take their property. Legislatures will have to decide whether it is worth it to the citizens they represent.
Why is it hypocrisy to want to hold onto your property, whether you are living there or not? Or to sell it for what you think it is worth, rather than be forced to sell it for 2000 prices to a (mostly) private development corporation?Mr. Sparkle wrote: Such hypocrisy I see on this issue.
Such willful blindness I see in this post. How about:Mr. Sparkle wrote: Such hypocrisy I see on this issue.
States Rights! Unless those states are liberal.
Constructionist Judges! Unless I disagree with the Founders.
I assume you wouldn't care if Yankees wanted to revitalize their local economies to benefit the entire community, despite 7 money grubbing owners, most of who don't even live on their properties.Tareeq wrote:You assume that the people who oppose Kelo only care about one or two issues.
My copy of the constitution says that Ed may be exercised for public use, not economic redevelopment and income growth through tax collection from third parties to which the govt has transferred the property.Mr. Sparkle wrote:I assume you wouldn't care if Yankees wanted to revitalize their local economies to benefit the entire community, despite 7 money grubbing owners, most of who don't even live on their properties.Tareeq wrote:You assume that the people who oppose Kelo only care about one or two issues.
You have your own state government - can't you handle this stuff on your own?
If that isn't enough, then I assume that, if you didn't think the Founders gave you enough property rights... you know, you might propose to amend the Constitution. Not make up shit that never was.
You're a fan of the 2nd Amendment; you should be familar with that argument.
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with your definition of public use... nor have many of the various courts that have reviewed these cases over the more than 2 centuries of this country's existence.Poleaxe wrote:My copy of the constitution says that Ed may be exercised for public use, not economic redevelopment and income growth through tax collection from third parties to which the govt has transferred the property.Mr. Sparkle wrote:I assume you wouldn't care if Yankees wanted to revitalize their local economies to benefit the entire community, despite 7 money grubbing owners, most of who don't even live on their properties.Tareeq wrote:You assume that the people who oppose Kelo only care about one or two issues.
You have your own state government - can't you handle this stuff on your own?
If that isn't enough, then I assume that, if you didn't think the Founders gave you enough property rights... you know, you might propose to amend the Constitution. Not make up shit that never was.
You're a fan of the 2nd Amendment; you should be familar with that argument.
I wouldn't care if you all choked on bagels tomorrow, no, but there's more to this country than Massachusetts and Connecticut.Mr. Sparkle wrote:I assume you wouldn't care if Yankees wanted to revitalize their local economies to benefit the entire community, despite 7 money grubbing owners, most of who don't even live on their properties.Tareeq wrote:You assume that the people who oppose Kelo only care about one or two issues.
Go back to the original Kelo thread and read what I wrote then.You have your own state government - can't you handle this stuff on your own?
We've been over this previously Sparkle, so I'm going to assume you do not mean to accuse me of abusing my purported profession (I am after all, an imaginary internet persona) to fabricate argument from authority by "making shit up that never was."If that isn't enough, then I assume that, if you didn't think the Founders gave you enough property rights... you know, you might propose to amend the Constitution. Not make up shit that never was.
You are so sensitive sometimes! I meant "you" in the generic... though I apologize for the fact that was unclear... I realized there was a chance that you might think I was speaking directly to you, but decided not to edit this time... my mistake. I thought by now, you would be used to my bombast... but I guess I can accept that you just don't like it /me. So be it.Tareeq wrote:We've been over this previously Sparkle, so I'm going to assume you do not mean to accuse me of abusing my purported profession (I am after all, an imaginary internet persona) to fabricate argument from authority by "making shit up that never was."
"You're a fan of the 2nd amendment" seemed a bit personally directed. How could you know that, let's say, noun, who also dislikes Kelo, is also a fan of the 2nd amendment? (For the record, he's not.)Mr. Sparkle wrote:In the other thread I provided numerous examples as far back as the 18th century where courts allowed local governments to move private citizens so that other private citizens could build a Mill... or canals... or whatever.
It's not new.
I don't think so... but isn't that what local governments are supposed to be for? To put it another way, is seizing an absentee slumlord's property and renovating it into quality low income housing justified "public use"? I brought up the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in the last conversation... but it seems very similar to this New London situation, in that the Dudley Neighbors Inc. is a non-profit private organization that has been given the responsibility of exercising DSNI's power of ED, which was granted by the city of Boston... it takes private property, compensating the owner fairly, and then parcels it out to private or non-profit developers who develop/build on it... which is then leased/sold to private citizens and business owners.Tareeq wrote:Put another way, is a Taco Bell a public use important enough to justify seizing a person's home?
I agree.That's why it was a 5-4 decision. It was new, though I believe the holding was a legitimate and logical extension of precedent. What I mainly advocated in the earlier thread was writing to legislators for those who (like me) disagree with the ramifications of the decision.
I certainly can be abused... and perhaps the New London case in an example of said abuse... but I would hate to see things like the DSNI stopped, because local communities don't care enough to handle their own bidness and keep their city councils or state legislators in check.Kelo is an invitation to government abuse and usurpation, and I'm sure you see that. My city council would never dare take my home (because I know 3/7ths of them). That doesn't protect poor people, or slumlords, who are people too.
I think there are 90 acres of land involved... the home-owners in question occupy ~1.5 acres... everybody else didn't have a problem with it. Is it germane? I believe it is, because the public relations campaign of the Libertarians likes to paint this as Big Evil Government tossing hard working families out on the street with a few pennies for their troubles... which is really not the case.Parenthetically, I find your characterization of the Kelo appellants as "greedy" to be disingenuous and beside the point.
What the Government giveth, the Government can taketh away.If a burglar broke into their homes to steal property the government would use lethal force to prevent that, even if the burglar offered to pay for his misdeeds. What privileges Pfizer over a burglar, morally speaking?
The slippery slope I fear is completely within my community's power to cause. I'm worried about them abusing power; telling me that they might not do so isn't particularly reassuring.Mr. Sparkle wrote:I'd rather not see that curtailed by the Feds, when the slippery slope you fear is completely within your own community's power to prevent.
Well, then it behooves you to contact your state representative and see what you can do about amending your Constitution... though, as I recall, you were already miffed about Dallas's use of ED to get land to build their new football stadium... and you probably have a snowball's chance in hell of gathering much support to stop that sort of thing, if it would negatively impact the 'Boys.Fretmute wrote:The slippery slope I fear is completely within my community's power to cause. I'm worried about them abusing power; telling me that they might not do so isn't particularly reassuring.Mr. Sparkle wrote:I'd rather not see that curtailed by the Feds, when the slippery slope you fear is completely within your own community's power to prevent.
If I had my druthers, my property rights would be sacred. Given that this is an unlikely to occur, I'll read the Constitution in such a way as to put the most limits on ED. As it stands, pushing for the most stringent classification of "public" seems to be the way to do this.Mr. Sparkle wrote:Tareeq seems to think it's ok to seize private property in the case of "public carriers"... do you agree? Would it take the sting out, if they were bulldozing your ancestral home to build a power plant to be operated by some vast power dealing conglomerate, just because they can't discriminate about who they provide power to?
Is that the distinction you care about? Discrimination?
You property rights are not sacred.
So, in the the ideal Fretmute world, would it be under no circumstances could the Government force you to sell... or would it be only under some circumstances?Fretmute wrote:If I had my druthers, my property rights would be sacred.
I would suggest that pushing for a particular interpretation of the wording of the Constitution is perhaps the least effective method to protect your property rights as you could possibly choose.Given that this is an unlikely to occur, I'll read the Constitution in such a way as to put the most limits on ED. As it stands, pushing for the most stringent classification of "public" seems to be the way to do this.
In my ideal world, it would be none. It seems to me that government ought to exist to protect my property rights, not to subvert them for its own use.Mr. Sparkle wrote:So, in the the ideal Fretmute world, would it be under no circumstances could the Government force you to sell... or would it be only under some circumstances?
True; I spoke previously in an "ideal" sense again. In Fretopia, all Justices agree, and no further protections would be needed.Mr. Sparkle wrote:I would suggest that pushing for a particular interpretation of the wording of the Constitution is perhaps the least effective method to protect your property rights as you could possibly choose.
So are you completely against the idea of eminent domain, or do you feel it should only be used for buildings that are owned and operated by the State?Tareeq wrote:Actually I don't think it's ok when property is seized for the benefit of a common carrier. It's just ancient law that eminent domain is permissible in such cases.
They're only human... and I suppose it depends on their own particular philosophy of the Constitution... but I would imagine that Scalia, at least, would claim that he is not influenced by public opinion.And if you think the Supreme Court doesn't keep abreast of public opinion you're mistaken. They're the most insulated branch by design and inclination (being aged law school geeks), and they're the heaviest handed, but they keep an ear to the ground, the same as any other government institution that ultimately derives its legitimacy from public respect.
It seems to me, that there are some things that are more important than property rights... as long as you are fairly compensated... the needs of the community can outweigh your right to refuse to sell. Whether those needs include building a Pfizer plant... or a football stadium... is a legitimate matter of debate... but for government to function, it needs to be able to pull out the trump card to get things done.Fretmute wrote:It seems to me that government ought to exist to protect my property rights, not to subvert them for its own use.