Eminent Domain Battle Ends in Conn. City

[Eugene]

Eminent Domain Battle Ends in Conn. City

By SUSAN HAIGH
The Associated Press
Saturday, June 24, 2006; 12:23 AM

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Two homeowners who had refused to leave their riverfront
homes to make way for private development have reached a tentative agreement
with the city of New London, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday.

Officials did not release details of the deal, which came a year after the
Supreme Court ruled that New London could seize the property under eminent
domain.

The settlement was announced a day after a deadline for Susette Kelo and Pasquale
Cristofaro to either settle or lose a chance at extra funds authorized by Rell.
The deal should be wrapped up by June 30, the governor said in a statement.

<snip>

House Minority Leader Robert Ward, who is familiar with parts of the proposed settlement,
said tentative plans include moving Kelo's house.

Associated Press Writer Shelley K. Wong contributed to this report from New London, Conn.

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062400065.html

[NYC]

1. Long Branch, N.J. is now going through the same thing.

It seems to be that (comparatively) poor people have to move out so rich people can live there.

It doesn't matter who got there first, and bought the property.

[izzie]

2. Well moving the house does not give them the view.

Once my father lost a building and the city wrote that they could not give him enough money to replace the building on a lot he owned. He won the case and got his money on that. A city parking lot was put in. The city and rich will always get what they want. In Maine they just tax the poor water front people off their land. Course no one buys with the hope their land will go down in value so I am not sure what one can do. It is hard on people who had had the places in their family for years. In Conn. their used to be a house and small lot right in the middle of a large parking lot as the people would not sell. It was just bad for that family. It was right out side of New London also.

[CTyankee]

3. Unfortunately, the Kelo case is being used as a stick to beat

Dems with. I tried to follow the arguments for the Court deciding it the way they did, but it got complicated. Now we're stuck with looking like we're on the side of greedy government against the little guy protecting his home.

[Gormy Cuss]

4. Yes, this is one where our side failed to make the persuasive argument.

I understand the reasoning for the Demo argument. I also know that being displaced from your home via eminent domain is rarely considered acceptable or beneficial to the homeowners and renters affected. My block was leveled as part of a new public works project.

[CTyankee]

5. Actually, I did read one cogent article per the "good" side of Eminent

Domain, I think in The New Republic. The author gave an example of the community, labor unions and government working together to tear down unsightly, slum lord owned houses and build a community health center that hired minorities in the neighborhood and paid workers what union workers received. It was a win/win situation. I wish I had saved that article.

But of course that example is not conducive to sound bites so the story never gets told...

[Gormy Cuss]

8. Ah yes, but even in that situation the critical issue is what happened

to the tenants. Were they displaced from the neighborhood, or rehoused in better quality housing at no cost to them? Otherwise, they lost. The greater neighborhood may have benefited but the original tenants may not have seen a positive outcome.

The truth of it is that eminent domain is a necessary tool but should be used only as a last resort, and when residential property is involved it should never be used in the manner it's being done in New London.

[CTyankee]

9. What I do recall from the SC decision

is that they HAD to rule that way according to CT's current state law and that the CT should change that law.

I can't remember what the law actually was, unfortunately. Help me out here. I thought the Court's majority basically said their hands were tied...

[Gormy Cuss]

10. The Wikipedia article is a decent summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London

It doesn't address the effect of CT law specifically in that case but was based on allowing wide latitude to local governments.

The Wiki summary of the majority and concurring opinions

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, found for the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy also penned a concurring opinion setting out more detailed standards for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens' majority opinion. Stevens said that local governments should be afforded wide latitude in seizing property for land-use decisions of a local nature. "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." The decision pre-empted criticism of the possibility that the decision would be abused for private purposes by arguing that "the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise. They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial restriction on the concept of public use." Justice Stevens also emphasized the importance of judicial restraint, stating that the Court recognized that condemnation of property would entail hardship and that the states were free to impose restrictions on the use of this power by local authorities. Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion observed that in this particular case the development plan was not "of primary benefit to . . . the developer" and suggested that, if it had been, the taking might have been impermissible.

[Toots]

6. Maybe you could explain it a bit for me because I don't understand

the Dem argument at all. I am not fond of imminent domain in the first place but to extend it to Private Developement is beyond me. It is one thing to take land for a highway or port system but a shopping mall? come on...

[robbibaba]

7. I agree.

It seems to strike at the heart of the American Dream. A cancer on the body politic.

[closeupready]

11. I guess I feel that eminent domain used this way encourages abuses

It feels like communism, suggesting that taking people's private property away will be good for the community, when often, it benefits mostly private developers.

I feel there should be a private property amendment, that the reasons for using eminent domain should be VERY compelling and specific, not just, "oh, we'll get more taxes/it'll revitalize the nabe/etc.", esp. when, as illustrated on 60 Minutes re: ED in Ohio, the mayor lives in a property which is blighted under the same city standards.