Kelo Report

[Pat McCotter]

Only in  as state with tax revenue coming in from the highest grossing casinos in the Northern hemosphere, could they still be looking for additional revenue.  Gambling sin taxes and cumpulsive tax and spend governments--- the ultimate co-dependency.  Only CT could go from in the hole---from  red to black to red deficit spending again in less than 20 years.  There must be some more public/private wretched eminent domain schemes brewing now that they have had such a success relocating private property owners from such blighted neighborhoods.

Note:  Las Vegas continues to outstrip its infrastructure.  They can not keep up with new schools, water or sewer projects.  Unbridled growth for the sake of growth alone is no solution anywhere for ever increasing property taxes.  Ony in Las Vegas could a municipality decide that old casinos/hotels could be taken by eminent domain to make way for higher grossing state of the art "house always wins" facilities.

Being on sovereign indian land the casinos cannot be taxed in CT. An agreement was made between the state and the tribes that gives the state 25% of the video slot machine revenues in the casinos. In 2005 this was $421 million. The proposed 2005-2006 budget in CT was $14.1 billion.

The red to black transition in CT you are referring to was probably due to the imposition of the income tax in 1991. Then the budget doubled in the span of eight years and the state was again in the red.

[Dave Ridley]

"Paint it pink!" protests? Paint pink everything that has been stolen by NLDC, or everything that is built on land they stole?

wow that is a great idea!

[TackleTheWorld]

"Paint it pink!" protests? Paint pink everything that has been stolen by NLDC, or everything that is built on land they stole?

In a remarkable case of convergent thinking,
Bill Von Winkle suggested the same thing.


[attachment deleted by admin]

[Pat K]

Susette Kelo: Kelo on Kelo: I'll keep my illusions

01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, June 27, 2006

NEW LONDON

A YEAR AGO last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that my home can be taken by the government and handed over to another private party for its private use. The only requirements are that the city must have some plan in place that says another owner can create more jobs and pay more taxes than I do.

There went my property rights -- and yours, too.

Hardly a day goes by as I work in my garden or have a cup of coffee in my kitchen, both of which overlook the Thames River and Long Island Sound, that I don't ask myself, "If I had to do it all over again, would I?" Even on my worst days, and there are many, my answer is the same: "Absolutely yes."

It was in February 1998 that I first heard that Pfizer Inc. was coming to New London. I remember thinking that this was going to be trouble for us in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, right next door to where the company was coming. Little did I know just how prophetic that thought was.

I immediately phoned Lloyd Beachy, the mayor then, who said he shared my concern and would take the side of the homeowners. He suggested that I call a local activist to see what I could do to defend my home.

Since that day, Lloyd and thousands of other people have become my sounding boards, my comrades in arms, and my best friends. Over 500 came to New London from as far away as Kentucky and Texas for a rally last July 5 to protest the notorious Supreme Court decision that carries my name. Without their support and that of the Institute for Justice, my fight would have been over years ago.

Where do I stand at this point? I think what I have thought from the very beginning: This is my home, and no one has the right to take it from me, especially for the vague concept of "economic development." I tell you honestly, and from my heart, that nothing will cause me to change my goals or my values.

Mark Twain wrote, "Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist, but you have ceased to live." My illusion has been, and will continue to be, that my home is mine.

Had the City of New London needed our homes for a school or a fire station, we would have understood that it was truly a "public use" and we would have complied. But there is no public use here. Building a hotel or upscale condominiums so someone else can live here is not a public use or even a public purpose. And in fact there are no specific plans for the land where our homes stand.

What do I think should happen now? What I thought should happen eight years ago: I and the Cristofaro family, who are also holdouts, should be allowed to keep our homes and live in peace. We should be able to pass these homes on to our children and grandchildren. This is America, isn't it?

[Editor's note: On June 5, the New London City Council voted 5 to 2 to authorize the city attorney to obtain a court order to seize and demolish the homes of Susette Kelo and Michael Cristofaro.]

Doesn't that simple desire define the safety and security of the American Dream? That is the dream that U.S. Justices Kennedy and Stevens and Souter and Ginsberg and Breyer gave away.

Last September, when we again received eviction notices, our governor, Jodi Rell, intervened on our behalf, asking the New London Development Corporation to rescind those notices and declare a moratorium on eminent domain until the legislature had had time to consider a bill to protect Connecticut property owners. An informal moratorium is in place to protect those whose homes were condemned after mine, but it is not retroactive.

But in any case, the legislature failed to act, so all Connecticut property owners are now in the same boat as I.

This has been a stressful eight years. More often than not, I wake up exhausted and wonder if it is all worth it. But though I've lost my rights and my property, I cannot quit.

The threat of eminent domain continues even though Governor Rell asked that our homes be incorporated in the redevelopment project; the City Council rejected that request, choosing instead to evict us. We now face the prospect that when the wrecking crew is trundling down the road, the city councilors -- my own city officials, who are supposed to protect my rights -- will have us dragged from our homes.

Nevertheless, I and the others who remain, who are outraged at this gross violation of our basic civil rights, still plan to keep our homes. That's how much they mean to us. We plan to keep fighting.

At some point, a day of reckoning will come for all. We will all have to answer for things we've done or failed to do. On that day, I would much rather be me than be the people trying to take my home.

Susette Kelo was the lead plaintiff in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that private property could be taken for private economic development.

[Tom Sawyer]

Again I find myself humbled by the courage and wisdom of the women...

[TackleTheWorld]

Eminent Domain Chronology

Published on 7/1/2006 in Region ? Region News

? Dec. 11, 1997: The state indicates, in a letter to Pfizer Inc., that it would improve and develop neighboring property if Pfizer would build its research facility on vacant city land bordering the Thames River. A ?Pfizer concept plan? shows Fort Trumbull, a blue-collar neighborhood, with new housing units, a hotel and a marina.
? Dec. 15, 1997: Planning firm retained by New London Development Corp. recommends redevelopment of Fort Trumbull peninsula to include a hotel and conference center, marina, marine-related activities and substantial residential condominium and townhouse development.
? Jan. 21, 1998: Pfizer announces its board of directors had approved construction of a global development facility in New London.
? Jan. 22, 1998: New England Real Estate Group begins obtaining options on Fort Trumbull properties.
? Jan. 30, 1998: The state approves $5.35 million requested by the NLDC to plan for a $185 million waterfront redevelopment that includes the vacant Naval Undersea Warfare Center office complex, the Fort Trumbull area and the former New London Mills site, where Pfizer would locate.
? Feb. 3, 1998: Pfizer, the NLDC and Gov. John G. Rowland announce Pfizer will build a $150 million office complex in New London.
? Jan. 18, 2000: The NLDC approves Municipal Development Plan, under development since 1998. The City Council approves the plan and gives NLDC eminent domain powers.
? May 8, 2000: The NLDC votes to begin taking 11 properties, including Hughie's Restaurant.
? Sept. 5, 2000: The City Council rescinds an earlier decision that prevented NLDC from razing buildings on Parcel 4A, where a Coast Guard museum will be built.
? Sept. 20, 2000: Coalition to Save Fort Trumbull submits a 400-signature petition for a referendum to save Fort Trumbull homes; it would be rejected by the city's law director, Thomas Londregan.
? October 2000: The NLDC votes to use eminent domain to acquire the last 22 properties.
? November 2000: The NLDC offers 11 property owners, including Susette Kelo and the Dery family, a total of more than $2.7 million. The offers are rejected.
? Dec. 19, 2000: The Institute for Justice, a Washington-based Libertarian firm, agrees to represent seven Fort Trumbull plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the city and the NLDC.
? Jan. 3, 2001: The NLDC and Corcoran Jennison sign a development agreement for a $115 million hotel and conference center in Fort Trumbull.
? Feb. 21, 2001: The city, NLDC and property owners reach an agreement allowing Fort Trumbull residents to stay in their homes while the eminent domain case is heard.
? June 8, 2001: Pfizer opens a new $294 million Global Research and Development Headquarters along Pequot Avenue, within sight of Fort Trumbull.
? July 23, 2001: The eminent domain case begins in New London Superior Court.
? March 10, 2002: Corcoran Jennison announces lawsuits are preventing it from getting financing.
? March 13, 2002: Connecticut Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Corradino rules on the eminent domain lawsuit, saying four plaintiffs had the right to stay on their property but that the city could take four properties for a waterfront redevelopment area.
? March 18, 2002: Fort Trumbull property owners announce an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
? August 2002: The city and NLDC file briefs asking the state Supreme Court to overturn the lower court ruling that allowed some property owners to keep their land.
? April 2003: The Institute for Justice releases a report that compares eminent domain to ?corporate welfare.?
? March 3, 2004: The state Supreme Court affirms NLDC's right to take property at Fort Trumbull by eminent domain.
? July 23, 2004: Institute for Justice petitions U.S. Supreme Court to allow seven plaintiffs to keep their Fort Trumbull properties.
? Sept. 28, 2004: U.S. Supreme Court agrees to review use of eminent domain at Fort Trumbull.
? Feb. 22, 2005: Oral arguments made at U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London.
? June 23, 2005: U.S. Supreme Court rules the city's use of eminent domain at Fort Trumbull is constitutional in a controversial 5-4 decision.
? July 2005: Corcoran Jennison reveals initial design for a $20 million hotel and conference center at Fort Trumbull.
? October 2005: Plaintiffs James and Laura Guretsky settle with the city for 19-23 Smith St., within the boundaries of the development plan but never taken by eminent domain.
? January 2006: Mayor Beth Sabilia proposes locating properties of remaining plaintiffs onto Parcel 4A and allowing them to remain there as lifetime tenants, an option that would be rejected by plaintiffs because it did not include returning property titles.
? Feb. 16, 2006: City Law Director Londregan asks the office of Gov. M. Jodi Rell whether the city can tap unused state funds for Fort Trumbull settlements.
? March 8, 2006: State Attorney General rules that $1.4 million in remaining state money originally set aside for improvements at Fort Trumbull can be used to settle with plaintiffs.
? April 3, 2006: The City Council rejects a proposal by the One New London party to return deeds to six plaintiffs whose property was taken by eminent domain.
? April 28, 2006: Gov. Rell announces a commitment by the U.S. Coast Guard to build the $58 million National Coast Guard Museum on waterfront Parcel 1A at Fort Trumbull. State, City, NLDC, Coast Guard and Corcoran Jennison sign memorandum of agreement. State commits $15 million toward museum, which is to open in 2010.
? May 26, 2006: Corcoran Jennison unveils $13 million plan for 66 luxury apartments, 14 townhouses and 24 extended-stay hotel suites.
? May 31, 2006: Plaintiff Charles Dery, who formerly owned 79, 81-83 and 87 Walbach St., settles with the city. Plaintiff Thelma Brelesky, whose son, Byron Athenian, lives at her former property at 78 Smith St., settles with the city. Gov. Rell sends letter to city setting June 15 deadline after which state money available to plaintiffs for settlements will be taken off the table.
? June 2, 2006: Plaintiff Richard Beyer, manager of Pataya Construction Limited Partnership, settles with the city for his former investment properties at 41 and 49 Goshen St.
? June 5, 2006: Plaintiff William Von Winkle settles with the city for his former properties at 27, 31 and 33-35 Smith St. The city agrees to buy a fourth property at 216 Howard St. never taken by eminent domain. City Council votes to authorize Londregan to proceed in obtaining possession of remaining properties and in collecting use and occupancy fees from remaining plaintiffs.
? June 15, 2006: Negotiations with Susette Kelo and the family of Pasquale Cristofaro continue, and the state extends its settlement deadline.
? June 23, 2006: On one-year anniversary of Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, plaintiffs Susette Kelo and Pasquale Cristofaro reach an agreement in principle with the city, and the state allows settlement negotiations to continue for one more week.
? June 30, 2006: Susette Kelo and Pasquale Cristofaro sign settlement agreements.
? July 10, 2006: The City Council will vote on whether to ratify the settlement agreements, which requires the support of at least four councilors. 

[Tom Sawyer]

Off topic, but nice job on your avatar

[TackleTheWorld]

Thanks for pointing out that southpark studio playground

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Tom Sawyer]

 

You made my day. A good belly laugh, thanks.

[Dave Ridley]

freedominnh wrote:

< < Kelo War Crimes Trial might generate some more negative Pfizer press. >>

Freedom, you know I appreciate your presence on this forum and the things you do in Hampton, but it always seems like you and others have these really grand ideas that would take months and dozens of people to accomplish, and thus remain merely ideas.  What have you, what have each of us *done* about this problem with the limited individual powers we do have?  Russell and Kat and Lloyd all went to the rallies and demos down there (maybe you did too, I don't know).  Lauren went to jail.  I made about 20 calls to perpetrators and showed up at souter's house. 

With every issue, each of us needs to ask ourselves:  "What can I do as an individual right now?"  Then just go do it!   That's better than asking "what can I do if 20 other people and four different complex prerequisites fall into place?"  Ninety nine times out of a hundred that question is followed by zero action. 

Here again is a simple action item you can do right now even if you only have 5 minutes and 50 cents to invest in solving this problem:

Call these perps:

Mayor, city manager 860 447 5201

NLDC offices  860 447 8011

and tell them whatever you want to tell them.

Even this, the most effective libertarian organization in the world, has a deficit of action and a surplus of talk.

[FTL_Ian]

Thanks for pointing out that southpark studio playground

<Ian jumps on the avatar bandwagon>

[Russell Kanning]

In a blue collar neighborhood, a good pair of bib overalls fits right in.

[FTL_Ian]

Since we're talking avatars... cast your vote:

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4343.0

[TackleTheWorld]

Hey! National coverage! New York Times

July 7, 2006
EMINENT DOMAIN
Homeowners Settle, but Their Fighting Spirit Lives On
By AVI SALZMAN
NEW LONDON, Conn.
OVER the last few years, as its residents fought a battle against the city to keep their homes, the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London looked more and more like a war-torn village, with acres of vacant lots interrupted intermittently by debris and a few scattered houses.
Fort Trumbull was at the center of a national debate over eminent domain last year after the United States Supreme Court ruled that the city could take residents' homes and transfer them to a private developer to put up new housing, offices and a hotel. Of the seven property owners who sued the city, the final two agreed on June 30 to settle, ending the battle.
If Fort Trumbull were a war-torn village, what propped it up was the guerilla activism and gallows humor of its resistance movement. During the conflict, messengers on bicycles handed out stickers deriding the city, and homeowners painted huge billboards on the sides of homes with slogans like "Say No to Eminent Domain Assault."
Bill Von Winkle, who lived in one of the 12 apartments he owned in the neighborhood, said he settled, on June 5, because he was offered more money. He wouldn't say how much, but to illustrate his point, he put on a pair of sunglasses with holographic dollar signs and said, "They finally saw it my way."
Two of his five remaining tenants, some of whom moved in even though they knew eviction was looming, were getting ready to leave. They were due out Sunday, Mr. Von Winkle said.
Efrain Caraballo, who works at the Mohegan Sun casino and moved to his one-bedroom apartment at 33 Smith Street in 2004 shortly after graduating from high school, said he would miss the neighborhood.
"It's kind of sad to leave here," he said. "This is the first apartment I ever had."
Lauren Canario, who also lived at 33 Smith Street, said she had moved to Fort Trumbull from Las Vegas after hearing about the Supreme Court ruling. Ms. Canario, an electronics technician, said she wanted to move to New London to support the property owners financially ? by paying rent ? and by fighting on their behalf. Last year, she was arrested for creating a public disturbance at a City Council meeting.
In a grassy area near Mr. Von Winkle's house, Ms. Canario set up a series of cement blocks with the property owners' handprints pressed into them.
Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, kept her house cozy throughout the ordeal, placing metal rocking chairs on the porch and storing moccasins in a basket at the foot of the stairs. Ms. Kelo, a nurse, was one of the last holdouts and negotiated a settlement in which the state will pay to move her house. She can keep living on her property for about another year.
Pasquale Cristofaro, who owned a house at 53 Goshen Street, also agreed to settle with the city on June 30 and will get a chance to buy property in the new development. His son, Michael, said the national movement to restrict eminent domain showed that the property owners had prevailed. Legislatures throughout the country have voted to limit condemnation.
"We lost the battle," he said, "but we're winning the war."

[Kat Kanning]

Cool.