When meeting victims of eminent domain abuse you feel powerless to come to their aide other than to see if there were any mistakes in the process that could be contested before the bulldozer arrives at their front door without an invitation.
We met New London, CT victims Susette Kelo and the Cristofaro’s, along with many other victims of eminent domain who came from cities around the country at a Castle Coalition conference dinner held in the Washington DC area three years ago.
In the infamous Kelo decision one of the justices stated that it is not their purview to verify if the proposed improvements will pencil out. That’s not their job.
Well, the Institute for Justice, whose attorney’s fought valiantly to save Susette Kelo’s home in New London, CT, have just provided an update on that development project which is contained in their latest Press Release which I have added below.
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
HOME PAGE: WWW.IJ.ORG
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 9, 2009
The End of an Eminent Domain Error:
Pfizer R&D Headquarters Closes in New London, Conn.
Land Taken in Infamous Kelo Supreme Court Case Remains Empty More Than Four Years After Ruling
Arlington, Va.—Pfizer, Inc., announced today that the company will be closing its former research and development headquarters in New London, Conn. This was a project that involved massive corporate welfare and led to the abuse of eminent domain that ultimately bulldozed the home of Susette Kelo and her neighbors in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London.
This was the same bogus development plan that five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court refused to question when the property owners of New London pleaded to have their homes spared from the wrecking ball. Justices mentioned that there was a plan in place, and that so long as lawmakers who are looking to use eminent domain for someone’s private gain had a plan, the courts would wash their hands. Now, more than four years after the redevelopment scheme passed constitutional muster—allowing government to take land from one private owner only to hand that land over to another private party who happens to have more political influence—the plant that had been the magnet for the development is closing its doors and the very land where Susette Kelo’s home once stood remains barren to all but feral cats, seagulls and weeds.
Scott Bullock, who argued the Kelo case for the Institute for Justice on behalf of the New London homeowners, said, “Today’s announcement that Pfizer is closing its research facility in New London demonstrates the folly of government plans that involve massive corporate welfare and that abuse eminent domain for private development. The majority opinion in Kelo v. New London described the Fort Trumbull project as a ‘carefully considered’ plan, but it has been an unmitigated disaster from start—and now—to finish.”
Bullock continued, “Project supporters blame the economic downturn for this turn of events. That is all the more reason why taxpayer dollars should not be put at risk in speculative and risky development schemes.”
Despite the Court’s Kelo ruling, much change for the good has occurred.
Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice and co-counsel in the Kelo case, said, “In the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo ruling, 43 states have now reformed their laws to better protect property owners. What’s more, seven state high courts have stepped in post-Kelo to protect the rights of homeowners against eminent domain abuse. The high courts of Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Jersey and Rhode Island have all ruled in favor of property owners and against eminent domain for private gain. None has made Kelo the rule under their own state constitutions.”
The tragic saga of the Kelo case is detailed in Jeff Benedict’s book Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage (Grand Central Publishing; 2009). In it, Benedict shares with readers how Kelo took on the City of New London, a cast of politically powerful villains and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case that sparked a revolutionary change nationwide in eminent domain laws—except in Connecticut.
# # #
Christina Walsh
Director of Activism and Coalitions
Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 682-9320
(703) 682-9321 – fax
www.ij.org
www.castlecoalition.org
Note: Larry Gilbert, Member, Institute for Justice’s Castle Coalition
email response:
Larry,
Thanks for sending this. The slogan for economic development takings should be “Hurry up and wait!”
What a disgrace. Unfortunately, it’s not an unusual story. You may recall at the 2006 IJ conference John Allison (of BB&T Bank) spoke and he told a family story about his elderly aunt, who was forced out of her home, only to see the property lie idle for 15 years. I’ve heard many stories like that.
Best,
Carla
Gilbert note: Carla is the author of Bulldozed. She was sued for publishing the story of the Gore family shrimp business in Freeport TX.
She is a “former opinion page editor at the National Law Journal.”
This evening at 6:30pm the Garden Grove City Council will decide on the Brookhurst Triangle area, at Brookhurst and Garden Grove Blvd. This 13.9 acre site is set for a decide whether to “pre-approve” a project with 20,000 sqft of commercial space and 800 units including a 23 story condo tower.
The city staff has assembled the property over the past dozen years and is now designing and conducting public hearings before a developer has been selected.
Why are taxpayers paying for property, designing plans, reports and public hearings which are normally paid for by developers?
#2, because it’s Redevelopment – where any city bureaucrat or council person can play big time developer – on the taxpayer’s dime. It’s fun and it’s freeeeeee!
Robin Marcario
Sadly we lost in our effort to protect private property when Prop 98 was defeated.
As to the city acquiring and assembling properties for a redevelopment project there is nothing that can be done IF, and I cannot emphasize enough that word, it is for a valid public use such as a school, park, firehouse or to widen a road.
The law just changed with passage of Prop 99. If these are single family owner occupied homes, in which the owners have been there for more than one year, and they are being acquired for a commercial project you can oppose that effort. The key is the timing of the acquisitions.
Is his excellency Bulldozer Broadwater still up to his old tricks?
We need much more protection for private property rights. Deferring to the legislatures and bureaucrats is too dangerous. You and I know that there is too much corruption and arrogance in the system. At the rate eminent domain is being abused, we are all renters. Why should people invest in real estate when the government can take it away any time they want?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgTNKvDmsHk&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJnAo9X0jTY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB-gH3WcQMo&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUgsD0EbYWI&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXbTRhp1hng
Ms Choon James.
While reform is not happening in CA., other state legislators had reacted to the terrible Kelo decision and have tightened their state laws. As a tenant you have no protection if you live in a complex or rental home that you do not own. Prop 99 only protects OWNER OCCUPIED single family homes