New London residents are not giving up the fight to save their homes

[Desertdog]

Fort Trumbull resident says she has not yet begun to fight
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=3561823&nav=3YeXbpZa

(New London-WTNH, July 6, 2005 1:50 PM) _ The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against them, but a group of New London residents are not giving up the fight to save their homes from development. People living in the Fort Trumbull area say the fight has just begun.

by News Channel 8's Chris Velardi
Susette Kelo says, "This started out just to be about me."

When Susette Kelo filed her suit against the City of New London she was merely trying to save her home, protect her property from being seized for development by eminent domain. When all this started Kelo was David the city, Goliath. Now Kelo is the face of a cause.

"Every poor person, every minority, every middle class American is in jeopardy of losing their home."

Late last month the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Kelo, ruled the city could take her home and others in this neighborhood, for development which it says would benefit the entire community. You might think a Supreme Court decision would be the final chapter. But Kelo doesn't think that way.

"We're gonna go to the House of Representatives in Washington, we're gonna legislate in the legislature in the State of Connecticut, we're gonna continue to fight."

In her letter to the editor today, Susette Kelo says when the developers come here, quote, “I will chase them from my property. We will not leave our homes. We have not yet begun to fight.”

"It's pretty tough to do all this work, and continue with your life and work full-time jobs and everything else."

But Kelo won't quit now, won't even think of it. After all, she says this is not about money, it's not about principle, it's about something much more basic.

"I'm just a simple person, just trying to keep their home."

News Channel 8 asked Susette Kelo what she thinks about being the face of cause for people around the nation. She says she never really looked at it that way but she's happy to have the support from all those people, she says that has re-invigorated her as far as fighting her fight.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I will chase them from my property. We will not leave our homes. We have not yet begun to fight.

Works for me. Heaven knows we can't count on government to protect us from... well, government.

 

[BeLikeTrey]

Is there a fund or way to help?

this is a nice way to put supporters of the second amendment on the board as supporters of the bill of rights as a whole. Would be nice to have a large lumpsum sent "earmarked" with a second amendment related groups name.

 

[itgoesboom]

Is there a fund or way to help?

Let's send ammo.

I.G.B.

 

[280PLUS]

“I will chase them from my property. We will not leave our homes. We have not yet begun to fight.”

This is where the SCOTUS has brought us.

 

[Mad Man]

Let's send ammo.

 

[slzy]

Who is the developer of this project going in here"What is going to be there? Who is financing it? the answers may have been posted before,but i figure someone can easily direct me to them. i can surly cease doing any type of business with anyone identified standing to profit from this seizure.

 

[Desertdog]

BeLikeTrey This is a nice way to put supporters of the second amendment on the board as supporters of the bill of rights as a whole. Would be nice to have a large lumpsum sent "earmarked" with a second amendment related groups name.

Fort Trumbull: Forward and Out
Published on 6/30/2005
http://www.shorepublishing.com/archive/re.aspx?re=0bf08193-6e2c-4c7f-88f8-07070636da9a

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to uphold New London's use of eminent domain was handed down last week, but it could be months before the controversial redevelopment project starts to turn its wheels again, as the seven property owners have not completely exhausted their legal options. The Institute for Justice, the libertarian firm who represented the Fort Trumbull residents in Washington, is considering filing a motion to reconsider with the high court, although the chances for a rehearing are slim. "We haven't made a motion to reconsider," said attorney Scott Bullock, who argued the case, Kelo v. New London, before the Supreme Court on Feb. 22. "We're going to take a close look at it; we're looking at all our options." Susette Kelo, who since the decision has been making the rounds on radio talk shows all over the nation, said the seven property owners are "positive" and plan to "continue the fight." "We're extremely disappointed," she said. "But we've been moved by the show of support from around the country." Kelo said she has received "countless" numbers of telephone calls, e-mails and letters encouraging her. Bullock and other attorneys from the Institute for Justice were scheduled to meet with the seven property owners on Thursday (after deadline) to discuss any possible legal action. A few hours after the decision at a press conference on the City Hall steps, representatives from the city and the New London Development Corp. along with their attorneys struck a celebratory note, with lead counsel Wesley Horton opining that "the case (made) New London look good." "It's a great day for the city and for cities that are economically depressed," he said. City attorney Tom Londregan refuted claims that the city's use of eminent domain was "a land grab." "It is about New London and its 6 square miles and its economic survival," he said. "The city followed the law." The next hurdle for the NLDC is getting the development plan passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission by a July 15 deadline. The planned hotel and condominium structure and the Coast Guard research and development center are slated for a simultaneous review. NLDC Executive Director David Goebel said he met with representatives of Corcoran Jennison, the developer tapped to build the hotel and condominiums, on Friday. "We hope to get going sooner rather than later," he said. Goebel said the discussion with Corcoran Jennison centered on minor adjustments to the hotel plan, such as the entrance to the waterfront and changes to the ballroom and restaurant. It is unclear when the seven property owners must vacate their houses. Goebel noted there was no sense "in getting worked up" about when they must leave. Also on the horizon is the compensation the state must pay the homeowners; Londregan noted last Thursday $1.6 million in funds are being held by the Connecticut Superior Court. According to attorney Scott Sawyer, the property owners' local counsel, the amount that will be given to each homeowner will be based on assessments made in November 2000, not what the land would be worth once the development is complete. "The value is frozen in time," he said. "They are only entitled to an amount equal at the time of the taking." Proceedings on compensation could start later this year, before which the property owners will probably hire appraisers in case they wish to legally challenge the amount. Sawyer, whose specialty is real estate law, said the future of eminent domain law will likely focus on compensation. Last Thursday, news of the Kelo decision left some city residents feeling discouraged and disheartened. "There is a sadness here, that nobody's really going to win," said Sandra Kersten Chalk, president of New London Landmarks, the historic preservation organization in the city. But after the evening newscasts and the glaring headlines in the morning papers, the city was awash in opinions and empathy for the property owners. "People have been coming in and talking about it," Danny Cardillo of the Thames Barber Shop on Methodist Street said. "They got screwed," Lou Pica, the barbershop's co-owner, said of Kelo and the other homeowners. Watering the flowers at the tourist information booth on the corner of Eugene O'Neill Drive and Golden Street, former Republican city Councilor Dorothy Lieb said the high court's decision left her "sick, absolutely sick." "Everyone is in danger in the country," she said. "I guess box stores are better than a nice neighborhood." At Parade News, the decision was the hot topic, as regulars drank coffee and checked in with owner Barbara Neff. "It's a sad day," she said. But Kip Boschain of New London said the NLDC's victory in the case would be a positive thing for the economic revival of the city. "How can a city revive without taking land?" he asked. "It will be good for the city; the contamination (in Fort Trumbull) got cleaned up." Artist Jack Montmeat, who was enjoying bagels and coffee at Muddy Waters Caf, said he felt people should read the decisions before making opinions. "I don't think the Supreme Court should override the town," he said. Waiting for a Boston-bound train at Union Station, Doug Oldfield of Denver said he read about the case in a newspaper and the court's ruling made him uneasy. "I'm a property owner," he said. "I'm against (using eminent domain) for economic development." Others, such as Stephen Hallquist, who was active in the prayer walks that those opposed to the development took around the neighborhood, worried that the city has become nationally famous for the wrong reasons. "I think New London has no way to salvage its reputation in this," he said. "It's too big."

 

[Don Gwinn]

As I understand it, there's some out of state developer doing the work, but the company creating the development is Pfizer Drug.

 

[drinks]

New London

How may I contribute to their defense fund.
Pfizer is already on my s--- list for concealing test results.
Don

 

[Flyboy]

Many people may not be aware of just how large Pfizer's drug portfolio is--their OTC list is a good bit longer than you might expect.

That's why I compiled this handy list of Pfizer OTC products and non-Pfizer alternatives. Feel free to submit suggestions to the list if you like.

Pfizer drugs

 

[Marshall]

Flyboy, that's a heck of list, thanks.



IGB wrote:

Let's send ammo.

LMAO

 

[Flyboy]

This seems as good a time as any...

...to request comments on a proposal.

A couple of weeks ago, when I called my Representative (Tom Cole), his staffer asked me what I'd like to see him do. I wasn't expecting that question, and stammered something about a law defining eminent domain as "not economic development," but I've been mulling it over for the last couple of weeks, and I've come up with something a little more substantial. Here's the result of that brainstorming; by all means, please comment on it. I want to know what's wrong, or what could be improved, before I send it to my Congressman. Without further ado, I present:

A BILL

To protect homeowners, small businesses, and other property owners from abuse of eminent domain.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Eminent Domain Abuse Prevention Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizures and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders.

(2) As Thomas Jefferson wrote on April 6, 1816, the protection of such rights is `the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it'.

(3) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically provides that `private property' shall not `be taken for public use without just compensation'.

(4) It is a basic precept of law that the concept of `damages' is concerned with making the wronged party or parties `whole.'

(5) That use of eminent domain often results in property owners being under compensated for the value of their property, and are almost never compensated for their time, loss of revenue, moving expenses, and other economic damages.

(6) That government is at a significant advantage when fighting eminent domain cases due to its nearly-unlimited resources, as opposed to the harshly-limited resources of private property owners, particularly homeowners and small business owners.

(7) That fighting eminent domain abuse is often a losing proposition, even when the property owners claims are meritorious, due to the high legal costs of lodging such claims.

(8) As an amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, and other organizations noted, `[T]akings ... will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly.'

(9) It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain, and to ensure that `just compensation' is paid in all cases, and makes the parties whole again.

(10) It would also be appropriate for States to take action to voluntarily limit their own power of eminent domain. As the Court in Kelo noted, `nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power'.

SEC. 3. INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF `JUST COMPENSATION.'

(a) In General- `Just compensation' shall include not only the `fair market value' of the property being condemned, but also the relocation costs associated with establishing a substantially similar business or residence at a new location.

(b) For the purpose of this section, `fair market value' shall be the value for which the property could be sold on the open market, and shall under no circumstances be lower than the value of the property assessed for the purpose of determining property taxes.

(c) For the purposes of this section, `relocation costs' shall include, but not be limited to, moving costs; real estate fees; sales taxes on property purchases; construction, assembly, and decoration costs; utility fees; and other definable economic costs directly related to the relocation.

(d) In cases where the compensation offered to the property owner shall understate the value of `just compensation' as defined herein by more than twenty-five percent (25%), the property owner shall be entitled to recover treble damages, and legal fees, from the condemning authority.

(e) Application- This Act shall apply to--

(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government; and

(2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.

I'm not entirely sure we need to limit it to Federal actions, seeing as how the Fifth Amendment has been incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and this law merely clarifies the Fifth, but I'd rather take a conservative approach for now. In any case, I think this would add enough cost to exercising eminent domain as to make "economic development" seizures considerably less profitable, in addition to the stated aim of ensuring that affected parties are made whole for their losses.