Kelo v New London, where are we now??


PDA






MrGreenMachine
April 28, 2007, 09:11 AM
With all the other goings on of late, DC v Parker, what's happened to the Kelo folks? Yeah I know old news but still important. I'm looking for a status on the Kelo folks, still living at home? settled out of court? evicted and demolished? Anybody close to New London hear any news. Cant find a thing on search and google.

If you enjoyed reading about "Kelo v New London, where are we now??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MrGreenMachine
April 28, 2007, 10:20 AM
Just as an aside, funny how kelo seemed to be fast tracked to the Supremes, compared to other cases.... Original suit 2000, settled by CT state supreme court 2004, then on to USSC within a year. Will Parker v DC take the same fast track. Doesn't seem very likely does it...

MacPelto
April 28, 2007, 04:52 PM
Kelo lost.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

Mac

nate392
April 28, 2007, 06:01 PM
I go to college in NL & from what I've been hearing recently the last house that was a conflict was bought from the state for something like 150k which is horrible, feel bad for the guy. Well, I guess well see where this brings us..

Can'thavenuthingood
April 28, 2007, 06:14 PM
Kelo set precedent for this.

http://nascocorridor.com/naipn/pages/participants.html

Vick

romma
April 28, 2007, 06:55 PM
The last Fort Trumbull Resident moved out the other day to the town where I now live... My whole family on my mothers side grew up and lived at the Fort...

thexrayboy
April 28, 2007, 07:22 PM
The miserable failing of the SCOTUS to shoot down the illegal taking of property by New London is a disgrace. At the federal level we now have virtually no defense as citizens against the predations of governent entities that wish to steal private property form the people for virtually any use they can imagine. The only defense now is the many states that have passed or are attempting to pass initiative level legislation to limit the theft of property that takes place masquerading as eminent domain. We must work hard at the state level to create legislation to restrict this abuse.

MrGreenMachine
April 28, 2007, 08:48 PM
Not a peep in any of the media about the last holdouts. I really thought there would be more news or a web site that followed this travesty closer. So now we know. Suzette Kelo and her neighbors were basically evicted from their private property and no one was around to do a thing about it. Sad day and age we live in when your private property is no longer yours.

ptmmatssc
April 29, 2007, 07:06 AM
Glad my state (as well as many others ) acted/reacted to that ruling .


Maine

LD 1870

Prohibits the use of eminent domain to condemn land used for agriculture, fishing or forestry or land improved with residential, commercial or industrial buildings, for private retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential purposes; primarily to generate additional tax revenue; or to transfer private property to another private entity. Provides a blight exception and use of land by a public utility.

Step in the right direction .

Waitone
April 29, 2007, 07:10 AM
Kelo set precedent for this.

http://nascocorridor.com/naipn/pages/participants.htmlNot quite. Kelo had to happen before the corridor began. No Kelo, no corridors.

BryanP
April 29, 2007, 09:06 AM
Not quite. Kelo had to happen before the corridor began. No Kelo, no corridors.

That's why he said Kelo set precedent for the corridor.

Al Norris
April 29, 2007, 10:18 PM
THE LIMITS OF BACKLASH: ASSESSING THE POLITICAL RESPONSE TO KELO

Ilya Somin, George Mason University School of Law
March 2007

This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=976298

There were two polls taken after the Kelo decision.

American Farm Bureau Federation Survey, Oct. 29- Nov. 2, 2005, Zogby International. Question wording: “Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling that allowed a city in Connecticut to take the private property of one citizen and give it to another citizen to use for private development?”

2% agreed / 95% disagreed.

The Saint Index Poll, Oct.-Nov. 2005, Center for Economic and Civic Opinion at University of Massachusetts/Lowell. Question wording: “The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that local governments can take homes, business and private property to make way for private economic development if officials believe it would benefit the public. How do you feel about this ruling?”

18% agreed / 81% disagreed.

The wording of the question obviously reflects how people voted in these polls.

How did your state fare in dealing with this public backlash? The following table is from Prof. Somins paper.

Table A1:
Post-Kelo Reform in States Ranked by Number of “Threatened” Private-to-Private Condemnations

State Number of Effectiveness of Reform
Threatened
Takings
Florida 2,055 Effective (L & LR)
Maryland 1,110 No Reform
California 635 Ineffective (L)
New Jersey 589 No Reform
Missouri 437 Ineffective (L)
Ohio 331 Ineffective (L)
Michigan 173 Effective (L & LR)
Utah 167 Enacted Prior to Kelo
Kentucky 161 Ineffective (L)
Texas 118 Ineffective (L)
Colorado 114 Ineffective (L)
Pennsylvania 108 Effective (L)
New York 89 No Reform
Minnesota 83 Effective (L)
Rhode Island 65 No Reform
Connecticut 61 No Reform
Indiana 51 Effective (L)
Arkansas 40 No Reform
Tennessee 37 Ineffective (L)
Virginia 27 No Reform
Nevada 15 Effective (CR)
Vermont 15 Ineffective (L)
West Virginia 12 Ineffective (L)
Nebraska 11 Ineffective (L)
Arizona 10 Effective (CR)
Illinois 9 Ineffective (L)
Kansas 7 Effective (L)
South Carolina 7 Ineffective (LR)
Hawaii 5 No Reform
Massachusetts 4 No Reform
Oregon 2 Effective (CR)
Delaware 0 Ineffective (L)
Georgia 0 Effective (L & LR)
Idaho 0 Effective (L)
South Dakota 0 Effective (L)
Wyoming 0 No Reform
Alabama 0 Effective (L)
Alaska 0 Ineffective (L)
Iowa 0 Ineffective (L)
Louisiana 0 Effective (LR)
Maine 0 Ineffective (L)
Mississippi 0 No Reform
Montana 0 No Reform
New Hampshire 0 Effective (L & LR)
New Mexico 0 No Reform
North Carolina 0 Ineffective (L)
North Dakota 0 Effective (CR)
Oklahoma 0 No Reform
Washington 0 No Reform
Wisconsin 0 Ineffective (L)

L=Reform enacted by state legislature;
CR=Reform enacted by citizen-initiated referendum;
LR=Reform enacted by legislature-initiated referendum.

If you enjoyed reading about "Kelo v New London, where are we now??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!