#Susette Kelo

[thestormposts]

Pfizer takes homes & when their tax break expires, the closed the plant!!!

[rjzimmerman]

Whining republicans again.........why? What harm to convert abandoned railroad rights of way to pedestrian or bicycle paths? I used to be a rabid bicycle rider, until my discomfort with crazy, reckless and speeding drivers caused me to reconsider, and cut back, biking. I remember once when I was riding on a public road to get to the Illinois Prairie Path. I was doing all the right things, riding on the right side, staying as close to the curb as possible, signaling when I needed to. Some old fart man, with his old fart wife or girlfriend, pulled up really close to me, dangerously, as his car was moving and the woman was rolling down the window, and yelling at me me to get my “fucking toy” off the road. I thoroughly enjoyed kicking his rear fender as he drove by, and then scooting down a skinny alleyway so he couldn’t get me.

Excerpt from this Wall Street Journal story:

A handful of farmers in Ohio’s Mahoning County are getting an unpleasant lesson in government power at the hands of a local park district. Mill Creek MetroParks, a public agency governed by five unelected commissioners, wants to take over an abandoned railroad line running through about a dozen local farms for a recreational bike path. Last year, when landowners balked at the idea of strangers wandering across their properties, the park district decided to invoke eminent domain and gain right of way.

“I asked the park representatives if there was any way we could negotiate on this, and they told me, ‘The time for talking is over. We’re taking this property,’ ” says Ohio state Rep. Don Manning, who tried to intervene on the farmers’ behalf. Rep. Manning, a Republican, has sponsored legislation that would limit the use of eminent domain in Ohio.

The practice of government taking land for recreational uses—typically bike lanes, hiking paths and fashionable “rail trails” and “greenways”—is spreading across the country, marking a sharp and troubling expansion of eminent domain. The Takings Clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment grants government the authority to seize property to be used for the public good, as long as government pays “just compensation” to the owner. Over the years, the Supreme Court has consistently expanded what is considered a “public good” to justify government seizures. In 2005, for instance, the high court upheld the taking of Susette Kelo’s waterfront home by the city of New London, Conn., so that a local development corporation could build high-end condos and a hotel. The redevelopment was intended to boost property values and increase municipal tax revenues.

[investmart007]

Woman who lost pink house, court case seeks box office win

New Post has been published on https://goo.gl/2Cedj6

Woman who lost pink house, court case seeks box office win

WASHINGTON/April 20, 2018 (AP)(STLRealEstate.News) — Susette Kelo’s Supreme Court case now has a Hollywood ending, just not the one she hoped for.

What Kelo wanted when she took her case to the high court more than a decade ago was to get to stay in her little pink house in New London, Connecticut. The city was trying to force her out to make way for development, and Kelo didn’t want to go. The high court ruled against her.

Now, however, Kelo’s story has been turned into a movie, “Little Pink House,” opening Friday in limited nationwide release. It’s a movie she and those involved in the film hope will get people to think about the government’s power to take private property for public use. Governments can use that power, called eminent domain, as long as they fairly compensate owners.

Kelo, who was in Washington this week to speak about the film, said what city and state officials did “ripped our hearts out.”

Kelo wasn’t looking for a fight when she bought her house overlooking the Thames River in 1997 and had it painted Odessa Rose pink. Divorced and with five grown sons, she was looking for a place of her own. She found it in the 100-year-old cottage. Shortly after she moved in, pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer announced it would move in nearby, building a research facility that opened in 2001.

New London hoped Pfizer’s move could help revitalize the city and, with the help of a private nonprofit development corporation, sought to redevelop land near the facility. A hotel, housing, office space, restaurants and shopping were planned. To get it done, the city authorized the use of eminent domain.

Kelo thought that was wrong, and she and a small group of other homeowners took on the city. They acknowledged eminent domain could be used to take their homes for public uses such as a road or military base, but they argued the planned development didn’t count.

“She was just fearless,” said Oscar-nominated actress Catherine Keener, who plays Kelo in the movie. “She took on everybody.”

Kelo had help. The Virginia-based Institute for Justice represented her and the other homeowners. The group was also instrumental in the new movie’s making, bringing a book about the case to the attention of filmmakers Courtney Moorehead Balaker and Ted Balaker.

Courtney Balaker, the movie’s writer and director, said she was “blown away” by Kelo’s case but also by Kelo herself. She compared her story to that of Erin Brockovich, a nonlawyer and divorced mother of three who took on utility company PG&E over contaminated groundwater in Hinkley, California, inspiring a 2000 movie. One big difference: Brockovich won.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled against Kelo 5-4. Three justices who sided with the city — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy — are still on the court. The two others — John Paul Stevens and David Souter — have since retired. The justices wrote that the city had carefully crafted a development plan it believed would benefit the community. They agreed the use of eminent domain was permitted.

“I want people to walk away thinking about if that’s right,” Balaker said.

Stevens, the Supreme Court justice who authored the opinion, has acknowledged it was the most unpopular one he wrote. Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented from the decision, ranked it among the court’s biggest mistakes. After the decision, more than 20 states significantly revised their laws to make it more difficult to take property through eminent domain, said Dana Berliner, litigation director for the Institute for Justice.

Those changes didn’t help Kelo, who had to move. And despite the lengthy legal battle, her land still stands empty. Pfizer announced in 2009 that it would leave New London. But submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat now occupies its former facility with many more employees, said New London Mayor Michael Passero.

Passero said that’s now helping spur development. Passero, a Democrat who grew up in the city, said while the movie vilifies the development corporation, he believes the people behind it had good motives, though they also made mistakes. More than anything, he said, the story is a cautionary tale about two sides becoming so polarized they couldn’t find a middle ground.

Kelo’s little pink house was ultimately saved. Disassembled and moved but still painted pink, it stands on New London’s Franklin Street. Although Kelo doesn’t live there, she says she thinks about her former home and her legal fight often.

“A lot of people ask: ‘How are you all doin’? … How are your neighbors? How did you survive this?'” she said of recent appearances in connection with the movie. She answers that they’ve left the city, bought new homes and are trying to do “the best we can to recover.”

______

By JESSICA GRESKO, Associated Press, published on STL.NEWS by St. Louis Media, LLC (PS)

[benrleeusa]

[Ilya Somin] Will Connecticut Finally Enact Meaningful Eminent Domain Reform?

Susette Kelo's famous "little pink house,"which became an iconic symbol of the Kelo case.

Some fourteen years after a controversial Supreme Court decision upheld the use of eminent domain to seize homes for transfer to private developers, the state where the case originated may finally pass a law that curtails such abuses.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that the government can take private property and transfer it to a new private owner for purposes of promoting "economic development." Although the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates that the government can only take property for a "public use," a narrow 5-4 majority reaffirmed the rule that virtually any potential benefit to the public counts as a public use. The government does not even have to prove that the supposed benefit will  ever actually materialize. As a result, the New London Development Corporation—a private entity authorized by the City of New London—was able to condemn fifteen residential properties in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. One of them was Susette Kelo's "little pink house," pictured above.

Perhaps even worse, the ill-conceived development project that led to the comdemnation fell through. Even today, almost fourteen years after the litigation ended, nothing has been built on the condemned land. Feral cats are the only regular users of the properties where homes once stood.

The former site of Susette Kelo's "little pink house", 2014. Nothing has been built. (photo by Ilya Somin).

  Feral cat on the site of one of the properties condemned in the Kelo case, 2011 (photo by Jackson Kuhl).

The Kelo decision sparked a massive public backlash. Polls showed that over 80% of the public opposed the decision, with opposition coming from such unlikely allies as the NAACP, Ralph Nader, Rush Limbaugh, libertarian property rights advocates, and even Bernie Sanders. Widespread revulsion against the Court's ruling led 45 states to enact new eminent domain reform laws. Some of these reforms provide strong protection for property owners. But many others are ineffective, imposing few or no real constraints on the use of eminent domain to seize property for influential private interests.

Despite being the state where the Kelo case originated, Connecticut enacted one of the weakest post-Kelo reform laws in the entire nation. I summarized it in my book on the Kelo case and its aftermath:

The new Connecticut law merely forbids the condemnation of property "for the primary purpose of increasing local tax revenue…." This restriction does not prevent condemnations for either economic development or blight alleviation [an alternative mechanism for seizing property for private development interests]. Connecticut law allows local governments to condemn property for both purposes…. Even the goal of increasing tax revenue can still be pursued so long as it is part of a more general plan for local "redevelopment." In practice, it is likely impossible to prove that a given property is being condemned primarily for the purpose of "increasing local tax revenue" as distinct from the goal of promoting economic development more generally.

A bill currently under consideration by the Connecticut state legislature could change that:

Now there's a legislative push in Connecticut to finally reform the state's eminent domain laws to prevent another situation like Kelo's. HB 5123, introduced by Rep. Tami Zawistowski (R-Suffield) would stop the state and its municipalities from using eminent domain to take property that would be used for any project that generates income for a private commercial purpose….

The bill passed the House's Planning and Development Committee, 15-6, but does not yet appear to be scheduled for a full House vote.

The text of the bill would ban the use of eminent domain in redevelopment areas "for any purpose that produces income from such real property for a private entity." This would forbid takings for privately owned "economic development" (as in the Kelo case) and probably also for the alleviation of "blight" broadly defined as anything that potentially constrains economic growth. It would not, I think, forbid takings for privately owned public utilities.  But such condemnations are both more defensible and less prone to abuse than takings for "economic development," which are easily captured by powerful interest groups and routinely fail to produce the promised economic benefits—as happened in the Kelo case itself.

Although there is some political momentum behind the bill, its passage is not a done deal. HR 5123 faces potential opposition from key members of the state legislature,  some local governments, and private interests who benefit from having governments condemn property for their businesses. State Rep. Zawistkowski, the bill's sponsor still expects "an uphill battle." But hopefully the political obstacles will be overcome, and Connecticut will finally get some real eminent domain reform.

In my view, the Kelo decision is based on a serious misinterpretation of the Constitution. I hope the Supreme Court will eventually overrule it. But, in the meantime, state governments should not act to curb such abuses without waiting for federal judges to do it for them. Even if "economic development" takings are not unconstitutional, they are still harmful and unjust.

[roboe1]

Is your property… yours? Not if the government takes it. Susette Kelo bought a run-down home. She fixed it up and painted it pink. Then the government came and took it. “Eminent Domain" has long allowed politicians to grab your property to build roads, railroad tracks, a border wall--anything they claim is for “public use.” But they wanted Kelo’s house so they could give the property to a private developer. Is that right? The movie called “Little Pink House” tells the story of how Susette fought for her home, all the way to the Supreme Court.

[rickkelo-rickkelotax]

Kelo v. New London

     In 2005, a landmark ruling made by the US Supreme Court shook the entire nation. In its ruling, the Supreme Court ordained that the City of New London, Connecticut holds the power to condemn the 15 properties and use it for the economic development for Fort Trumbull and adjoining area.     The city of New London was facing a sharp economic decline. To revive the economy, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) was given charge of coming up with a development plan.     The development plan included the building of office spaces, houses, and facilities for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The owners of the properties in this area were made to part their properties. Obviously, not all of them wanted to do it including Susette Kelo. The case was taken to the Court which has decided that the City has all the rights to do ir as it is "public purpose" or "public use" as it was called before. The Supreme Court has stated the same and the meaning of "public use" has changed from that point.      Years later, it was found that the development plan undertaken by the NLDC was wrong as it failed. Some lawyers who voted in favor of the NLDC even apologized to petitioner Susette Kelo.

[qualityhomeworkanswers]

Business & Finance homework help

Business & Finance homework help

Eminent Domain

SUSETTE KELO’S NONDESCRIPT, PINK Clapboard house sits above the Thames River in the Fort Trumbull area of New London, Connecticut. It’s surrounded by vacant lots, where neighbors once lived. One by one, these neighbors have left, and their homes have been razed. Their property has been taken over by the City of New London, which has used its power of eminent domain to clear the land…

[philshawe-blog]

Phil Shawe Charity Gala

Guests were received at the incredible 1 Hotel Rooftop for a cocktail reception featuring specialty cocktails and iconic views of the Brooklyn Bridge, Statue of Liberty, and Manhattan Skyline.

After an unforgettable sunset, the gathering moved downstairs for the Gala dinner and was greeted by local Brooklyn jazz quartet, Garden Party. Guests mingled in the 1 Hotel’s Social Space which abuts the lush Brooklyn Bridge Park and had a chance to speak with representatives of the four charitable groups that were being featured throughout the evening:

·         The V Foundation for Cancer Research

·         Key West Film Festival

·         Resilience Rising

·         TransPerfect Advocate Benefiting the Ali Forney Center

As guests sat for dinner the evening’s host, Phil Shawe, thanked those assembled for joining including the night’s guest of honor, property rights advocate, Susette Kelo. Phil also thanked members of the TransPerfect team who’d joined from across the globe, including members of the San Francisco, Atlanta, London, Washington DC, and Barcelona offices. When asked who in the room was part of the TransPerfect family, roughly half the crowd erupted into raucous applause.

The first portion of the night’s program centered on recognizing the finalists of the Philip Shawe Challenge, a scholarship competition for second and third-year law students that had concluded earlier in the evening. The top three finalists (including one team of two) had presented their oral arguments at Brooklyn Borough Hall and after some deliberation; the event’s judges had determined the winners.

The moot court presentation featured a distinguished panel of judges, who honored the top ten competitors, and heard oral defenses by the top three student teams. Professor Alan Dershowitz, Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick (Ret), Senior Associate Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, Justice Melvin Schweitzer (Ret), New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division, and Joseph D. Hansen, former Director of Interns for Justice Schweitzer, New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division served as the Supreme Court Justices for the competitors.

The winners were:

1st Prize – Steven Hermosa of the University of Florida Levin College of Law

2nd Prize (tie) – Alison Tilden and McKaye Neumeister of Yale Law School

2nd Prize (tie) – Catherine Dowie of Suffolk University Law School

Following the awards presentation, Alan Dershowitz, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law and a distinguished constitutional legal scholar, delivered a powerful keynote addressing the fundamental legal, business, and property rights implications that were the subject of the competition.

After dinner, the program focused on recognizing the incredible work performed by the evening’s four featured organizations. Representatives from each group shared a little about their work and invited guests to learn more at their tables throughout the reception area.

[itunesbooks]

Little Pink House - Jeff Benedict

Little Pink House A True Story of Defiance and Courage Jeff Benedict Genre: United States Price: $12.99 Publish Date: January 26, 2009 Publisher: Grand Central Publishing Seller: Hachette Digital, Inc. SOON TO BE A MOTION PICTURE STARRING CATHERINE KEENER "Catherine Keener nails the combination of anger, grace, and attitude that made Susette Kelo a nationally known crusader." -- Deadline Hollywood Suzette Kelo was just trying to rebuild her life when she purchased a falling down Victorian house perched on the waterfront in New London, CT. The house wasn't particularly fancy, but with lots of hard work Suzette was able to turn it into a home that was important to her, a home that represented her new found independence. Little did she know that the City of New London, desperate to revive its flailing economy, wanted to raze her house and the others like it that sat along the waterfront in order to win a lucrative Pfizer pharmaceutical contract that would bring new business into the city. Kelo and fourteen neighbors flat out refused to sell, so the city decided to exercise its power of eminent domain to condemn their homes, launching one of the most extraordinary legal cases of our time, a case that ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court. In Little Pink House, award-winning investigative journalist Jeff Benedict takes us behind the scenes of this case -- indeed, Suzette Kelo speaks for the first time about all the details of this inspirational true story as one woman led the charge to take on corporate America to save her home. Praise for the book: "Passionate...a page-turner with conscience." -- Publishers Weekly http://dlvr.it/R1VGgh

[nightmare-afton-cosplay]

Property Snatchers: How Eminent Domain Can Leave You Without a Home

Al Seib/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

For the last three years, Atlanta resident Sean Breslin has kept followers of his personal blog, Breslanta, breathlessly updated on the progress of SunTrust Park, the Atlanta Braves’ splashy new stadium, which opens this month. The former sportswriter was excited about the ballpark’s location near his home in the Cumberland/Galleria neighborhood, where he and his future wife had moved in 2013.

But early last November, Breslin found out that the stadium—and the network of new roads that would be built to provide access to it—was going to cost him his home.

“If it wasn’t all so ironic, I would cry,”  Breslin wrote in his blog.

His county had invoked eminent domain, a longstanding process that the government uses to seize privately held land for public use, like a new highway or railroad—or a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Increasingly, experts say, eminent domain is being used to further private development. And it’s happening all over the country.

The feds have been using eminent domain since the 1800s, and the principle was ratified by the Supreme Court in 1876, when the owner of a private house in Cincinnati sued the government, which had seized his land to build a post office. The court ruled that the power of eminent domain was necessary. It’s been a controversial and highly contentious issue ever since.

Now it’s kicking into high gear again. As the economy has bounced back from the housing crash, and real estate markets have heated up, more local governments have been turning to eminent domain to acquire land to build sports complexes, shopping centers, and new condominiums. Sometimes—but not always—these are blighted areas.

And although the ousted owners are provided with what local officials deem “just compensation” for their land, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment, some owners are rising up to challenge the notion that a bona fide public use is behind such seizures.

Sean and Cat Breslin and their home

Sean Breslin; Cat Breslin

Eminent domain has skyrocketed, and here’s why

Eminent domain has been on the rise across the country for a few years now, says Robert McNamara, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm based in Arlington, VA, that defends against such cases.

It dates to the time that developers started to come out of their recessionary hibernation in earnest—ready to put up sports, housing, and entertainment complexes. Backed by local officials in many of these communities, they weren’t letting private homes and businesses stand in their way.

During the recession, “you saw an almost entire absence of eminent domain abuse,” McNamara says. Now, by contrast, he adds, “We’re seeing cities and suburbs eager to redevelop their downtown areas.”

The growing recent use of eminent domain for private projects can be traced to the landmark Kelo v. City of New London case, which went before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. In a 5-4 decision, the court allowed local governments to use eminent domain when redevelopment promised economic benefits to a community.

Susette Kelo, outside her New London, CT, home, which had been condemned by the state, shortly after the Kelo v. City of New London ruling.

In simple English, that means homes and businesses in most states can be seized, legally, if it is believed that the development might raise property values and could generate higher tax revenues.

“Under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, you’ve got two requirements for a taking: It has to be for public use, and the government has to pay just compensation,” says attorney Emmett Boney Haywood, a partner with the Nicholls & Crampton law firm in Raleigh, N.C. But Kelo changed all that.

The biggest spike in eminent-domain seizures is happening in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic regions, particularly in states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, McNamara says.

There is no national system for tracking when eminent domain is used for private developments rather than for public works projects, like schools and roads. But seizures in both categories are up considerably. The feds seize property for things like roads, military bases, federal buildings, and oil pipelines.

In 2012, the federal government filed 123 eminent domain lawsuits. The number rose to 568 in 2016.

Local governments aren’t always the bad guys when they seize someone’s property. Building schools, parks, and entertainment venues can make struggling neighborhoods safer, increase existing property values, and bring in new businesses as well as sorely needed jobs.

In Kansas City, MO, for example, eminent domain helped the city clear several blighted blocks for the development of an entertainment district and arena. Housing, hotel, office, and retail redevelopments have followed.

But all too often, eminent domain is used in cases that are not so clearly beneficial to the general population. The process can leave homeowners feeling powerless and badly adrift.

In many cases, there’s little homeowners can do once their homes are marked for the taking. Sean Breslin blogged about his experience, hoping that it would scare up a whistleblower who could reveal government shenanigans that could delay or derail the project. So far, no signs of foul play have emerged, and Breslin has accepted his fate. He anticipates receiving a first buyout offer from Cobb County as early as June.

“We’re thinking of having kids, so in a couple of years, we were likely going to be looking for a home in the suburbs,” Breslin tells realtor.com®. “But this certainly moves up the timing for us.”

States push back against Supreme Court ruling

Outrage over the Kelo decision prompted 44 states to enact laws to protect home and business owners from losing their property to private development. The exceptions are New York, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Oklahoma.

Last year, for example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared unconstitutional part of a 2012 law that allowed the taking of property for private natural gas projects. It ruled that an underground storage company could not show a benefit to the state beyond job creation.

But some states have since relaxed those positions, and angry property owners are fighting back.

California is helping lead the revolt. In October, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill that allows communities to form “Community Redevelopment and Investment Authorities” and use eminent domain to take blighted property for economic revitalization projects, affordable housing, and infrastructure.

But “blight” doesn’t necessarily mean run-down properties in polluted industrial wastelands. Instead, the broadly defined term could apply to as much 78% of California’s land, according to a study by a Sacramento consulting firm, Andrew Chang & Co. That’s nearly four-fifths of the state.

During California’s budget crisis five years ago, Brown abolished about 400 local redevelopment agencies, which for years had been using eminent domain to declare private property blighted and to divert property taxes to pay for projects such as shopping districts, residential developments, stadiums, and even a green renovation on a luxury golf course. A state analysis concluded that instead of creating lots of new jobs, the projects generally just transferred jobs between communities, at a cost of roughly $5.5 billion a year.

“Now that the economy is better—and as states and cities have become hungrier for tax revenues—lawmakers are creeping back to the old habit of taking private property and turning it over to a private developer, under the guise that it’s somehow a public benefit,” says Larry Salzman, an eminent domain attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.

How a former NFL player fought the system

Bear Lake, Utah

Phil Olsen

Entrepreneur and former National Football League offensive lineman Phil Olsen wasn’t facing off against private developers when he led a recent effort to fight eminent domain in Garden City, UT. Instead, he was trying to block the town’s mayor, who was trying to take over portions of seven private properties in the town’s Bear Lake area. Including Olsen’s.

The lake is heralded as the “Caribbean of the Rockies,” and the mayor wanted to create more public access to it. In December, after years of wrangling with property owners, he announced that Garden City would use eminent domain.

“We knew that if the city went ahead, we couldn’t stop them,” says the 68-year-old Olsen, who visited Bear Lake every summer as a kid and bought his property after signing his first professional football contract. “But the city had never done eminent domain and thought it would be easy and cheap. Our goal was to prove that it was not going to be easy, and it was not going to be cheap.”

Among other actions, Olsen’s homeowners association began educating nearby property owners as to what could happen to them if the city was successful. It also lobbied for support, beginning with the governor’s office in Utah and working its way down through the Legislature and state agencies. Eventually, the eminent domain was quashed—in return for an agreement that all parties would help in funding a new, less intrusive, public access point.

“We care about public access to the lake. We’re not jerks,” Olsen says. “But you don’t use eminent domain flippantly. It should be used when there are no other alternatives, and in this case, there were plenty of alternatives.”

Phil and Connie Olsen, with their neighbor Jerry Phelps, celebrate the reinstallation of their gate at the head of their joint-use driveway, after successfully winning a lawsuit against Garden City.

Phil Olsen

The post Property Snatchers: How Eminent Domain Can Leave You Without a Home appeared first on Real Estate News & Advice | realtor.com®.

from http://www.realtor.com/news/trends/eminent-domain/

[gibsongirlselections]

The Little Pink House, 15 Years Later

In 1781, a force of British troops under the command of the turncoat Benedict Arnold landed in the city of New London, Connecticut. New London for decades had been a haven for privateers, and for much of the Revolution had been the lone American-held deepwater port between British-controlled New York and Newport. Arnold and his men easily overran Fort Trumbull, which defended New London, then burned most of the city to the ground. Across the Thames River at Fort Griswold, another British force met stiff resistance, though they eventually massacred most of the Americans there.

A month later, at the Battle of Yorktown, Lafayette would exhort the American troops under his command to “remember New London.” Today, you’re more likely to hear that from a lawyer than you are a general. Once a great martyr of the Revolution, Fort Trumbull has since become the site of one of the most hated Supreme Court rulings in history. Fifteen years ago this month, the infamous Kelo v. New London decision was handed down, which affirmed the city’s right to seize private property and hand it to a developer. The case opened the door for the nearly unlimited use of eminent domain and attracted bipartisan outrage that endures to this day.

The story begins in the late 1990s, in Connecticut’s capital of Hartford, where a young and ambitious Republican governor named John Rowland was eager for a success story in a deep blue state. To that end, he looked southeast to New London, where the recent closure of a major submarine research lab had left the city economically listless. Reluctant to collaborate with local Democrats, he decided instead to work through the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to revive the area. The NLDC, with Rowland’s blessing, went hunting for developers. It wasn’t long before they had a bite: Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant, agreed to build a massive new headquarters in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. At the groundbreaking ceremony in 1998, Rowland portentously declared, “Years from now, this will be a case study in how to revive a community.”

There was just one problem: Pfizer wanted a lot of space. That meant the NLDC needed to acquire the property of about 90 owners in Fort Trumbull. It quickly set about doing just that, offering them more than their land would otherwise be worth, overhung by the silent threat of property seizure if they didn’t sell. Yet seven of the holders refused to move. Among them was Susette Kelo, the owner of a riverside cottage that she’d bought, fixed up, and painted pink. Unable to badger Kelo, New London authorities turned instead to eminent domain, which is when the government, acting under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, acquires “private property” for “public use” after providing “just compensation.” Generally uncontroversial when employed for public projects like roads and power lines, using eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another is a different story entirely.

Kelo was served with an eviction notice—during Thanksgiving week, no less—that ordered her out of her home. Rather than comply, she and some of the holdouts decided to sue the city. For help, they called upon the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian law firm in Washington (full disclosure: my wife works at IJ). IJ agreed to represent them pro bono and launched a legal and public relations offensive, handling Kelo’s suit while also publicizing her story. The case went first to a Connecticut trial court, which in 2002 struck down most though not all of the takings. Both sides then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which upheld all the seizures in a contentious four-to-three decision. Yet the dissenting opinion was strong enough that IJ thought they might have a glimmer of a chance at another appeal. Sure enough, in a move that stunned both sides, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Kelo’s case.

Arguments were in early 2005 and the decision was handed down four months later. It was a five-to-four split in favor of New London. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that celebrated social justice warrior, sided with the majority to throw a working-class woman out of her home. So did Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the opinion. Kelo and the other plaintiffs had exhausted their options; lacking other means of redress, they were forced to move out.

Stevens’ opinion was underpinned by two pillars: federalism and precedent. On the first, he argued that the Court should have a light touch in applying the Takings Clause, deferring instead to state and local legislatures to enact eminent domain restrictions. On the second, he cited two prior Supreme Court decisions that upheld the use of eminent domain for private development. In Berman v. Parker, the Court unanimously approved of Washington, D.C.’s seizing of property in a deeply blighted neighborhood, while in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, it allowed Hawaii to take land on Oahu that was concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few. Stevens argued that such seizures amounted to “public use” under the Fifth Amendment, and thus New London’s did too. He quoted from Berman: “The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. …The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary.”

Contrast such Anthony Kennedyesque gibberish—Kennedy sided with the majority in Kelo—with the clear reasoning of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissent. O’Connor doesn’t challenge Berman or Midkiff (though a separate dissent by Clarence Thomas does). But she does note that in Berman, the intent was to control blight that was feeding poverty and dysfunction, while in Midkiff, it was to break up a land oligopoly. These constituted extraordinary public harms, as opposed to in New London, where Kelo’s home wasn’t hurting anybody.

O’Connor writes:

In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public—such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public.

Take that to an extreme and you get a dystopia where any private property can be seized and handed to any developer, where the benign hand of the state can assign you a value and then swap you away for anyone deemed to rate higher, homo economicus gone mad. How else to describe what New London wanted to do? They were trying to rotate out Fort Trumbull’s working class in favor of a better type of citizen, one employed in pharmaceuticals with more money to spend—and tax. Government thus gets to featherbed its favorite constituents, big corporations, while taking in more revenue for itself. This is what really happens when you negate property rights, not the egalitarian fantasies of tweenage Marxists. To justify all this under the Fifth Amendment is to nullify the Takings Clause entirely.

In spite of the Court’s confusion, the story of Kelo ends with poetic justice of a kind. The ruling touched off national outrage, as 44 states took Stevens at his word and tightened their eminent domain laws in favor of private property rights. One of the Connecticut Supreme Court justices who ruled against Susette Kelo later approached her and said he regretted his decision. Stevens in his memoir called Kelo “the most unpopular opinion that I wrote during my more than thirty-four years on the Supreme Court.” A book was published, Little Pink House by Jeff Benedict, that chronicled the Fort Trumbull homeowners; it was made into an award-winning movie.

Governor John Rowland resigned from office, was convicted of corruption charges, went to prison for a year, got out, became a radio host, was convicted of more corruption charges, and went back to prison (welcome to Connecticut!). Pfizer moved into New London, then in 2009 moved back out, its development having never been finished. Government’s enlightened arbiters of the public good had miscalculated. Today the site where the Fort Trumbull homes once stood is a barren field. The city is still trying to develop it. Local wags plant fruit trees on it.

As for Susette Kelo’s little pink house, it was ultimately saved from destruction, disassembled and moved to another street. There it stands today, a monument to the incredible neighbors who, like the patriots of 220 years before, took on despotism and very nearly won.

The post The Little Pink House, 15 Years Later appeared first on The American Conservative.

[prelawland]

Pawtucket Red Sox Spark Conversation About The Property Rights of Worcester, MA

By Rebecka Sokoloff, Brandeis University Class of 2022

May 27, 2020

Recently, the city of Worcester announced the plans of developing a baseball stadium for the Pawtucket Red Sox in hopes of regentrifying the city. In the process of developing, the Worcester Redevelopment Authority (WRA) would have to go to different properties and buy it from people. While there are chain businesses that will not be affected by this, the independently owned companies will struggle. If family and independently owned businesses were to fight the City of Worcester for their property rights, it could turn into eminent domain and Fifth Amendment right cases. This case can be compared to the 2005 case of Kelo v. New London, the city of New London, Connecticut seized the private property of homeowners in order to develop the land into a more useful and economically thriving area. Susette Kelo and other homeowners sued the city for violating their Fifth Amendment rights to private property. From this case, one could question Worcester’s use of eminent domain to justify their right to take the property of business owners in order to enhance and regentrify the community.

For full article please visit

Home Run or Strike Out: Property Rights At Risk As Worcester Develops New Baseball Stadium

at

Massachusetts PreLaw Land

[johnaculbreath]

Prop2 Class 20 – Eminent Domain

The lecture notes are here.

First, start with the text of the 5th Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process, of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Here are a number of photographs of Susette Kelo and her home, courtesy of the Institute for Justice (the public interest law firm that litigated Kelo to the Supreme Court).

Susette Kelo in front of her little pink house.

After the case, Kelo disassembled the house, and moved it across town. It was moved from 8 East Street (by the water) to 36 Franklin Street.

View Larger Map

Note that the entire lot is vacant, except for the stray building–The Italian Dramatic Club.

Here is a satellite photo from 2007 showing several other properties remaining on the lot. Today only the Italian Dramatic Club survives.

It now stands as a monument to eminent domain for private development.

Susette Kelo’s house being disassembled and moved across town.

Deconstruction of Kelo’s Home

Deconstruction of Kelo’s Home

In 2009, Pfizer pulled out of the New London project. The site of Kelo’s home remains vacant. There have been reports that feral cats now reside on the land.

The present site of Susette Kelo’s Home

Via Business Insider, The Hartford Courant reports:

Pfizer Inc. will shut down its massive New London research and development headquarters and transfer most of the 1,400 people working there to Groton, the pharmaceutical giant said Monday….

Pfizer is now deciding what to do with its giant New London offices, and will consider selling it, leasing it and other options, a company spokeswoman said.

Scott Bullock, Kelo’s co-counsel in the case, told the Examiner’s Tim Carney: “This shows the folly of these redevelopment projects that use massive taxpayer subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain.”

Here’s how the Associated Press describes the vacant lot:

Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation’s most notorious eminent domain project.

There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne’s lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot’s towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.

  Prop2 Class 20 – Eminent Domain republished via Josh Blackman's Blog

[benrleeusa]

[Ilya Somin] My New "Washington Post" Op Ed on Eminent Domain and the Border Wall

The op ed describes the extensive harm likely to be caused by condemning the large amounts of private property that would need to be seized to build the wall.

The Washington Post just published my new op ed on eminent domain and President Donald Trump's proposed border wall. Here is an excerpt:

In his speech on Saturday, President Trump reiterated his determination to build his border wall. Much of the debate over this issue focuses on whether Trump can get the funding he wants.

But even if congressional Democrats agree to give him the funds in exchange for concessions on other immigration issues, that would be only the beginning of the drama over the wall. Trump cannot acquire the land he needs without forcibly displacing large numbers of property owners by using eminent domain. That inevitably threatens the property rights of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans.

Less than one-third of the needed land is currently owned by the federal government. The rest — as much as 1,300 miles — is held by private owners, Native American tribes and state governments, many of whom are unlikely to sell voluntarily. Even if the wall does not cover the full 2,000 miles because it excludes some areas, such as those that have "natural" barriers, many property owners will have to be displaced....

To get that land, the government would have to resort to eminent domain: a power that allows the state to seize property from unwilling owners. The result would be one of the largest federal condemnations in modern U.S. history. In Texas alone, there are some 4,900 parcels of privately owned land within 500 feet of the probable route of the wall. In Arizona, some 62 miles of the route is owned by the Tohono O'odham Nation, which opposes the wall because it would damage the tribe's land and impede ties with members across the border. No one knows exactly how many homes, businesses and tribal properties would have to be condemned. But it is likely that thousands of people would suffer....

In 2005, the Supreme Court generated widespread outrage when it ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that the government could condemn homes to promote private "economic development." The project fell through, and today the site of Susette Kelo's house is used only by feral cats. Trump is a long-standing defender of Kelo, in large part because he himself has a history of benefiting from eminent domain abuse, including the notorious 1998 condemnation of elderly widow Vera Coking's home to build a parking lot for one of his casinos.

As legal scholar Gerald S. Dickinson notes, "The Great Wall of Trump could leave hundreds of Cokings and Kelos at risk of losing their property" — vastly more than in Kelo. They would lose their land to build a structure that is not justified by any genuine security crisis, is likely to cost more than $20 billion in taxpayer money and probably would not significantly reduce undocumented immigration. Even seizing land for feral cats seems a better deal than that.

In this post, and an op ed in the New York Daily News, I discussed the issues raised by the possibility of Trump using emergency powers to build the wall. He does not seem to be pursuing that option, for now. But it could potentially resurface if Congress continues to deny him funding for the wall.

[mymoviedump]

Little Pink House

She fought for her home, and yours. 

A small-town nurse named Susette Kelo emerges as the reluctant leader of her working-class neighbors in their struggle to save their homes from political and corporate interests bent on seizing the land and handing it over to Pfizer Corporation. 

[rickkelo-rickkelotax]

The Case of Susette Kelo

             Susette Kelo dreamt of owning a house that looked out over the water in the Fort Trumbull area. However, sometimes the circumstances can change all the plans in a drastic way.         To come out of this economic situation, in which the City was in 2000, it restored the New London Development Corporation (NLDC). It sanctioned a $5.35 million bond issue for supporting the planning activity of the NLDC and another $10 million bond for the development of Fort Trumbull State Park. Later, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced its decision to come up with a $300 million global research facility, next to Fort Trumbull.        The City came up with a decision that the land could be used in a better way by others for economic development. However, not all of the owners including Kelo wanted to part their properties.        The fight over Fort Trumbull eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Court in 2005, in one of the most controversial rulings in its history, held that economic development was a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.       The Supreme Court in its ruling stated that the City’s decision to take the private property for public usage as completely justified. After all, it would support the economic developmental plan for the Fort Trumbull area and the rest. It pointed out that the use of the term public use is subject to serving a public purpose.