Connecticut eminent domain case being considered by U.S. Supreme Court

[Cardinal]

I live in a city where some people will be scheming to take advantage of the court decision. In the first place we have no urban planners of any kind on the city or local Redev. Agencies staff. They always bring highly paid consultants in to make the pitch or slant things the way they want. They actually got caught useing ED illegally. HUD refused them the use of federal funds to make the settlements with the owners. So it had to be paid out of general fund budget. I only bring this up to show that their are people out there who have no problem taking advantage of certain situations for political friends and reasons. I left a renewal agencies just for these. They feel they are not accountable for their actions. This will spur much debate nationwide. Those who can pay will definitly get to play.

There are actually very well-defined procedures which must be followed when federal funds are being used in a project which will displace people or businesses. Remarkably few planners or economic developers (and fewer politicians or their hacks) are aware of this. Besides these, many states have also adopted procedures which local governments or their agents must follow.

Whether or not the Suprement Court declared that property might be siezed for private redevelopment, the New London case is one of an abuse of that power and poor execution of the process.

[abrowne]

From: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...velopments.htm

- An insulting offer of $60,000 from the government on a home worth $215,000. The government would condemn the house years in advance then offer a pittance for it.

- Unannounced visits to Cristofaro's elderly parent's home demanding they sign a contract to hand over their property.

- Intimidating and harassing phone calls at all hours of the day.

- Parking bulldozers and wrecking balls outside the houses pointing at the property with threats of "your house is next."

- Revving the engines of the bulldozers outside the houses in the early morning hours of the morning. Just picture that for a second, revving bulldozers while threatening old people to sign papers handing over their home.

- Cristofaro's mother becoming distraught and suffering a heart attack after being served with condemnation papers that said she no longer owned her property and had ninety days to leave.

- A threat to charge residents back rent if they lost the case, effectively meaning the homeowners will have to pay the city to be kicked out of their own homes. One resident, William von Winkle (pictured above), would owe the city $200,000 in back rent.

- William von Winkle's apartment tenants were forcibly evicted and locked out from their homes in the early morning hours during winter with snow on the ground, before the city even owned the property. Von Winkle had to break back into his own apartment block to prevent his tenants from freezing to death.

Apparently this is just some of the crap that took place in and around the eminent domain case. Now, I barely understand eminent domain as it is (it seems to me that it is a simple concept that has been made too complicated, but I might be in error), but these allegations, if true, are monstrous!

Is this a biased source? Is this an isolated case of abuse? What exactly is taking place here?

[nemo31]

There are actually very well-defined procedures which must be followed when federal funds are being used in a project which will displace people or businesses. Remarkably few planners or economic developers (and fewer politicians or their hacks) are aware of this. Besides these, many states have also adopted procedures which local governments or their agents must follow.

Whether or not the Suprement Court declared that property might be siezed for private redevelopment, the New London case is one of an abuse of that power and poor execution of the process.

They purposley tried to circumvent the rules and come in a back door. Many of the properties were vacant. They were basically trying to make a land grab. First they send property inspectors in to write citations. Get appraisments claiming zero worth. This without informing the owners and requesting entrance or getting a search warrant. They would go to court and when no one was there to provide a defense ,the courts were granting them the properties. The problem for them was, some were occupied or in the process of being rennovated. The owners were fortunate that someone new someone who could give some advice. A real problem seems to be that a lot of local agencies or government do not want people around who are qualified in these areas. They just seem to want yes people. They are just giving those that want to end CDBG more ammunition. These cannot be the people the Supremes were refering to as local decision makers. Could they?

[Wannaplan?]

The Poletown case was one of the cases of abuse allowed by lower courts mentioned by O'Conner (in the parenthesis above). I didn't include the citation so here it is: Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit, 410 Mich. 616, 304 N. W. 2d 455 (1981). It would appear from that citation that it was decided by the Michigan courts and was not reviewed by the supreme court.

The Supremes did quote another Michigan case, a more recent one, County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 445 (2004). According to the Common Monkeyflower blog, in Michigan:

It looks like we're much safer than even that, though, as the US Supreme Court specifically names Hathcock as an example of States that have much stricter restrictions on eminent domain. In order to change this, therefore, it would seem to require the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse itself (which rarely happens - it took 24 years for Michigan's Poletown precedent to be reversed by Hathcock, and I think that's remarkably short as takings law goes), or for the Michigan State Constitution to be changed to allow private economic development as a public use.

See the blog link for the basis of this analysis, which quotes the opinion as follows:

We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.

[NHPlanner]

The backlash has started in NH:

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Cafi" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

[SGB]

But, I thought that couldn't happen in NH!?!?

Or is this merely empty political theater?

........ New Hampshire remains one of the best states to own a home or business without fear of it being taken for another private party.

[NHPlanner]

But, I thought that couldn't happen in NH!?!?

Or is this merely empty political theater?

It can't....but it won't stop him from trying. The NH Supreme Court decision still governs....so it ain't gonna happen.

[Habanero]

It can't....but it won't stop him from trying. The NH Supreme Court decision still governs....so it ain't gonna happen.

So to that end, would a state's constitution still govern as well?

[NHPlanner]

So to that end, would a state's constitution still govern as well?

That's my understanding from the US Supreme Court Decision:

We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.

[gkmo62u]

But isn't that exactly why this decision does not make sense and why this current court is terribly conflicted?

Are they truely federalists or activists? just not clear because somebody different is always jumping from one side to another to create this (what seems like and I have not researched) series of 5-4 decisions


I guess my point is that either this is an infringement on the 5th and 14th amendments or its not? And isn't it the job of the Supremes to defend as such?

Just because a state legislature makes a law doesn't mean its consitutional. So this would all go away if every legislature passed a law that says no eminent domain for economic development purposes?

Wouldn't some local juristiction challenge that as unconstitutionally restrictive??


I thought I was a smart guy but understanding this stuff makes me feel pretty dumb!

[jordanb]

I guess my point is that either this is an infringement on the 5th and 14th amendments or its not? And isn't it the job of the Supremes to defend as such?

The supreme court interpets the constitution, it doesn't enforce it. In this case it was tasked with interperting the 5th amendment in this circumstance. The court ruled that the 5th amendment does not apply.

Just because a state legislature makes a law doesn't mean its consitutional. So this would all go away if every legislature passed a law that says no eminent domain for economic development purposes?

Absolutely. The court has ruled that the 5th amendment does not protect property owners against "economic development" takings. That does not preclude a legislature from passing a law that does protect property owners agains such takings.

Wouldn't some local juristiction challenge that as unconstitutionally restrictive??

They couldn't use the 5th amendment. It places restrictions on takings, it does not place restrictions on legislatures' ability to place restrictions on takings. I could see if, say, Congress were to pass such a law, a local government could sue claiming that it's the federal government stepping on States Rightes under Article II, but I couldn't imagine any constitutional argument against a state government passing such a law.

[BKM]

California law is actually quite a bit more restrictive in that it requires pretty strict findings of blight (too lazy to post the quotes). I'm sure there is still room for abuse, but it doesn't appear that new London's purely economic development approach would fly here. (Maybe I'm naive)

[JNA]

BUMP -- UPDATE

Headline and Article from the AP Wire:
Eminent Domain Battle Ends in Conn. City

Highlights:

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.

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.

Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, and Cristofaro had faced the possibility of forced eviction from their homes....

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

[JNA]

BUMP - From USA TODAY -- Today's Debate : Eminent Domain

One year later, power to seize property ripe for abuse
Our view: Backlash to high court ruling grows, as do land grabs.

Vital tool of last resort
Opposing view: Uproar obscures eminent domain's crucial role in revitalizing areas.
by Donald J. Borut; executive director of the National League of Cities.