Eminent Domain rears it's ugly head again

New London, Connecticut is the new culprit. The town is trying to oust an entire neighborhood to "spur economic growth in the city." The neighborhood was chosen because of it's prime location along the Thames River. The neighborhood is low-income, but is far from deteriorating. The case will soon go to the Supreme Court.

The homeowners and businesses in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood have been fighting to save their property since the City of New London announced a plan to redevelopment their land. Much of the land will be leased to Corcoran Jennison, a private developer, for ninety-nine years at a rent of $1 per year paid to the New London Development Corporation, a private, nonprofit corporation. The city government and private development corporation hope that the upscale residences, expensive hotel and office buildings will generate more tax revenue and jobs than the less wealthy homes and businesses that currently occupy prime waterfront along the Thames River. One petitioner Wilhelmina Dery was born in her house in the neighborhood in 1918 and still lives there, along with her husband of fifty years and the rest of her family, according to the appeal filed by the homeowners with the U.S. Supreme Court after a sharply divided 4-3 decision against them by the Connecticut Supreme Court.

www.prfamerica.org...

I for one, find the whole concept disgusting. Especially when I hear of people being forced from their homes with no compensation. I hope to see the decision of New London promptly overturned.

I really hope the USSC doe's the right thing and denies eminent domain on this case. Developers and business have basterdized the term "public good" for far to long by bribing local government with our very own tax dollars.

What is Eminent Domain?

That is when the government can take the land for either a certain amount, or even for nothing.
It should be illegal.

RFLMAO!!!!


Really!! Crikey, land of the free hey?

They can do something similar here, but the owner has to be compensated quite well. Plus it has to go through the court

According to the law as I know it, the government must compensate you when they take your land. Also, the land must be used for a public work. This means they can't take it and sell it to GM to build a factory, for example.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
New London, Connecticut is the new culprit. The town is trying to oust an entire neighborhood to "spur economic growth in the city." The neighborhood was chosen because of it's prime location along the Thames River. The neighborhood is low-income, but is far from deteriorating. The case will soon go to the Supreme Court.

The homeowners and businesses in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood have been fighting to save their property since the City of New London announced a plan to redevelopment their land. Much of the land will be leased to Corcoran Jennison, a private developer, for ninety-nine years at a rent of $1 per year paid to the New London Development Corporation, a private, nonprofit corporation. The city government and private development corporation hope that the upscale residences, expensive hotel and office buildings will generate more tax revenue and jobs than the less wealthy homes and businesses that currently occupy prime waterfront along the Thames River. One petitioner Wilhelmina Dery was born in her house in the neighborhood in 1918 and still lives there, along with her husband of fifty years and the rest of her family, according to the appeal filed by the homeowners with the U.S. Supreme Court after a sharply divided 4-3 decision against them by the Connecticut Supreme Court.

www.prfamerica.org...

I for one, find the whole concept disgusting. Especially when I hear of people being forced from their homes with no compensation. I hope to see the decision of New London promptly overturned.

Eminent Domain can be really ugly. Example: the city I used to live in took over a neighborhood and a few small businesses under eminent domain. One business was a funeral home, a highly respected one. This was all done to put in a ball park in, a Class A Cleveland Indians affiliate. Not a road, not a public works project, nothing like that. They do have to compensate but how can you put a price tag on your home, especially when you're not leaving it on your own terms. Now, most people were generally happy with the offers they got but some were not. The funeral home for example went to court and got more than they were offered.

Again, all this for a....ball park.

And it's not the Democrats or Republicans. It's the Libertarians.

Eminent Domain used to be used for 'public good' projects like highways. Not so anymore. Governments around the country are using the 'blight' argument to underpay private property owners and force them off their land in the name of 'progress'. Development firms make campaign donations to candidates who push the eminent domain issue through their local legislatures.

Originally posted by Esoterica
the government must compensate you when they take your land.

Yeah, but who determines the price? The free market? No! Politicians. But if you love government, you'll really love the 'BOHICA' action you get when you get pennies for the dollar on the value of your home!


The Supreme Court better do the right thing. I'd like to see the Reps or Dems stand up against it, but why hold my breath? None of them have on the Campaign Issues Forum for this topic. (shameless plug)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by HoonieSkoba

Yeah, but who determines the price? The free market? No! Politicians. But if you love government, you'll really love the 'BOHICA' action you get when you get pennies for the dollar on the value of your home!

Actually, I believe the city hires professional appraisers who recommend the price. And you can always take the city/state to court if you believe you're getting gipped.

Originally posted by Esoterica
Also, the land must be used for a public work. This means they can't take it and sell it to GM to build a factory, for example.

Well, it may not have been eminent domain, but two neighborhoods in metro Detroit were relocated to build factories.
Here's a link to one of the projects:
auto plant vs. neighborhoods

Here's an update from Pittsburgh Live

Farther than a Barry Bonds' home run, but not too far from the U.S. Supreme Court, a 20-acre tract at the Anacostia River has been selected for a new stadium for the baseball team from Montreal. One property owner is considering a fight.

Might the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court be nauseated by this paradigm? The Framers would be.

Amazing that we don't actually own our land at all, and that the government is not required to pay you. But that's for another thread.

There was a case in Everett, WA a few months ago where they wanted to take over a hotel and turn it into a homeless shelter. If I remember right they offered the owner like 1.2 million dollars when he had just payed 3 million a couple years earlier. People threw such a fit they eventually dropped it.

Originally posted by Esoterica
According to the law as I know it, the government must compensate you when they take your land. Also, the land must be used for a public work. This means they can't take it and sell it to GM to build a factory, for example.

Yeah, and here's a real good example of Eminent domain being used for the "public good" , and the property owners being "Properly" compensated.......


"Bush did not make his fortune in the oil fields. He made it at a major-league ball park heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth.

Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more.

"It was $135 million worth of sales tax money," said attorney Glenn Sodd. "The city donated a good bit of land to the project. They got a sales tax exemption on all the items that were purchased for the stadium. We have a property tax in Texas and they were given as part of the deal a property tax exemption." A total of at least $200 million, according to Sodd.

And there's more: Sodd sued the Rangers on behalf of two families whose property was seized for stadium parking. A jury found they were paid about one-seventh of what the land was worth. "

I was shocked to realize how long this battle had been raging when I did a search for this thread to post the latest update. Sadly, it seems the little guy has lost. I wonder if the City council will make it throught the next election.

my.earthlink.net.../4484fdc0_3ca6_1552620060606-1778626524

NEW LONDON, Conn. - City officials voted Monday night to evict residents who refused to leave their riverfront homes, signaling that the end may be near in an eminent domain dispute that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

The City Council approved the action 5-2. The city attorney will now go to court to seek removal of the remaining two families and obtain the properties in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, a process that could take three months.

UUUGGG not again. Eminate domain is such a nasty thing. They did that here a few years back to put that new race track in out in Kansas. They had talked about doing it again to put a Walmart in.

Totally stinks, I wish these people the best of luck.

Ill have to find the story but there was a block in Oakland; in which, this guy had an auto garage that his family had run for 65 years. Apparently the city is using E.D. to evict him (and the other neighbors) so that sears can build thier own auto garage.

Ive never liked E.D. the way it was and when these new changes were applied it was an immense blow to the american people. Combined with the new bankruptcy laws, has been a killer one-two punch to the american public.

After reading this thread I can see that Im not alone in the assessment that the govt is overstepping its bounds. Hopefully it doesnt continue to worsen.

I wish I won the lottery, so I could get a town to eminent domain a supreme court justice's house; and put in a 7/11 store.

Just a few years ago I sat on a Town Board where there was a large parcel behid the Highway department we despearetly needed for expansion. The problem was, part of the parcel, on the same parcel but not inviolved in what was needed, was an inhabited residence.

We made a fine offer on splitting the parcel and paying a fair price for the lot, leaving his home in tack and buffered. He refused, so we were forced to cut him a deal to include taking the residence (again a fair price and allowing him use of the residence for at least a year after the transfer). This of course was going to cost the Town but in the long run it was necessary. We bit the bullet, even though we could have just done a taking under eminent domain for what we needed (and I should point out this was for the public good of the Town at large and involved no private corporate concerns.

Still, at that time, no one was comfortable using eminent domain over the rights of the property owner because that just isn't right!

Now just a few short years later eminent domain is being blatantly abused for all the wrong reasons. People have got to take it out on their elected officials who are in office to serve YOU, by getting them out of office as quickly as the election cycle allows. This is the only hope to stop this travesty. the higher courts are not going to uphold your rights, you have to fix it in your own back yard. Nobody seems to get this.

A good guage of who to go after (in most instances people don't get rich off of their local elected stipends) is who seems to be having major positive income flows once they hit the seat of power. Read between the lines folks, and my advice has always been - when in doubt - vote them out.