Kelo v New London, where are we now??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
48
Location
Tennessee
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.
 
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...
 
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..
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 .
 
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​

Code:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top