Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Kelo v New London, where are we now??

Discussion in 'Legal' started by MrGreenMachine, Apr 28, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MrGreenMachine

    MrGreenMachine Member

    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.
     
  2. MrGreenMachine

    MrGreenMachine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    Tennessee
    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...
     
  3. MacPelto

    MacPelto Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    652
    Location:
    The Great State of Texas
  4. nate392

    nate392 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    62
    Location:
    CT
    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..
     
  5. Can'thavenuthingood

    Can'thavenuthingood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    704
    Location:
    California
  6. romma

    romma Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    3,208
    Location:
    Southeastern,CT
    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...
     
  7. thexrayboy

    thexrayboy Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,324
    Location:
    northern nevada
    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.
     
  8. MrGreenMachine

    MrGreenMachine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    Tennessee
    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.
     
  9. ptmmatssc

    ptmmatssc Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    563
    Location:
    Maine
    Glad my state (as well as many others ) acted/reacted to that ruling .


    Step in the right direction .
     
  10. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
  11. BryanP

    BryanP Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,420
    Location:
    Lavergne, TN
    That's why he said Kelo set precedent for the corridor.
     
  12. Al Norris

    Al Norris Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    570
    Location:
    Rupert, ID.
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page