It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CT eminent domain case

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I'm so upset I can't see straight. Remember the case where the supreme court ruled corporations can declare eminent domain and take your house ?

well, they can also charge you rent for the time you are in their house




news.yahoo.com...

Chutzpah is a Yiddish word meaning brazen arrogance. The cliché example is a man who murders his parents and then begs a judge for mercy because he is an orphan.

ADVERTISEMENT

The city of New London, Conn., deserves a chutzpah award. In 2000, it condemned 15 homes so a developer could build offices, a hotel and convention center. Susette Kelo and her neighbors spent years in a legal battle that culminated in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against them.


That was painful enough. But while the homeowners were battling in court, New London was calculating how much "rent" they owe for living in the houses they were fighting to save. (The city's development corporation gained title to the homes when it condemned them, though the owners refused to sell and haven't collected a cent.)


The homeowners could soon be served with eviction notices, which is justified by the court ruling. But the rent is something else. For some, it comes to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kelo, whose name is on the landmark case, could owe $57,000. "I'd leave here broke," she told the Fairfield County Weekly. "I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."


In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free."


Well, they might have expected not to be bullied for exercising their right to be heard in court.




posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
In the article I read earlier today it was stated that they would be paid the original value of their homes based on 2000 prices, which is when they first started fighting this case. Of course, the house prices have risen a lot since then


Land of the free?



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Wow, this is shocking


I guess this case is heading back to court for this provision


I'm sure a lot of organizations would be willing to do this pro-bono since the original case caused such outrage...

BTW -- anyone know what's going on with the people who want to take Souter's and Brennan's homes??? I hope that happens, I'd certainly like to go stay at the Lost Liberty Hotel and have a bite to eat at the Just Desserts Café!



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I live in NJ and this type of thing happens all the time..as a matter of fact NY is trying to use eminant domain to get land in NJ for an airport and highways...how many people will be displaced by this action?



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWindowGuy
I live in NJ and this type of thing happens all the time..as a matter of fact NY is trying to use eminant domain to get land in NJ for an airport and highways...how many people will be displaced by this action?


www.cnn.com...

the thing is it isn't about states rights to make room for a highway anymore, its about your rights versus costco and walmart. Its about losing your home because it has a nice water view, and someone wants to put a restaurant there.

They now are actually charging rent to the folks that took the case all the way to the US supreme CT for the time they were living in their own houses and fighting for OUR rights.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join