New London - 20th Year of "Redevelopment" and 10th Anniversary of Kelo

[maxparrish]

Today is the 10th Anniversary of the landmark Kelo v. New London, the legal fight by her and her neighbors homes having begun nearly 10 years earlier. So it is now been twenty years since the project began with initial clearings, "for Pfizer" the last of which was completed after New London won the suit.

http://www.courant.com/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-kelo-anniversary-20150622-story.html

Today, on the 10th Anniversary we can tip out hat to the tax hungry community "customizers" and their business hand-maidens. Pfizer pulled out of the town in 2008, and the project area is now actually blighted.

Happy Anniversary.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I like the way that context was added to the post so that the point being made was understandable instead of it just being a bunch of random images without meaning.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's a good lesson in the hazards of mixing government and private enterprize.

I was once married to a woman who made very persuasive arguments which started with, "If only you would..." The proposition was simple. If I would change some part of my behavior, she would do something. After a few if onlys, I began to recognize the pattern. Of course, there was always another if only behind the latest one.

In the case of Kelo, a property developer is a little short of cash. He doesn't have the money to fund his project, so he has borrow it. He can't get a loan because the doesn't actually own the property he wants to develop. To make things worse, a few people simply don't want to sell. He presents the city with an if only.

If only you use your power of government to throw people off their land, I'll build a high end residential housing project and you'll get beaucoupe property taxes. Now the city is collecting taxes on vacant land and abandoned buildings. If only.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So it was Pfizer who did it!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That bites.

I know they did so private business eminent domain here locally. Started the demolition in 2007 and well... the market crashed. So we had empty lots for a long while. New places opened up and now it is greatly improved from what it was.

I was one of the only people that supported the Kelo decision. Right-wingers were against it because white people were losing their property. Left-wingers were against it because people were losing their property. I was for the decision because due process was had and those people didn't have a problem with eminent domain legislation until it affected them. Good ole NIMBY or is is NMY in this case?

I like how the articles starts off with this case being one of the most controversial... when Griswald v Connecticut and Palko v Connecticut would be magnitudes more important and controversial. What I don't get is this:

Towns should have the power to use eminent domain for economic development, but only as a last resort. The planning and financing have to be solid before demolition begins. The community has to buy in.

Seems reasonable. But there were 115 private properties and only 7 or 15 remained (I'm not certain if the 115 refers to parcels meaning 15 remained or owners meaning 7 remained). The vast majority of local owners did buy-in to this plan. The plan failed in part because Pfizer left.

More to the point, the question is whether the Government can take property. It can. That is well established. However, due process is required and the Government must pay for the land, oddly this wasn't always true. States could take land without Due Process, presuming their State Constitution didn't call for it being otherwise, for most of the 1800's. The Supreme Court ruled that they couldn't be judging from afar every eminent domain case that involved economic development.

 

[maxparrish]

...I was one of the only people that supported the Kelo decision. Right-wingers were against it because white people were losing their property. Left-wingers were against it because people were losing their property. I was for the decision because due process was had and those people didn't have a problem with eminent domain legislation until it affected them. Good ole NIMBY or is is NMY in this case?

I like how the articles starts off with this case being one of the most controversial... (Community buy-in) Seems reasonable. But there were 115 private properties and only 7 or 15 remained (I'm not certain if the 115 refers to parcels meaning 15 remained or owners meaning 7 remained). The vast majority of local owners did buy-in to this plan. The plan failed in part because Pfizer left.

More to the point, the question is whether the Government can take property. It can. That is well established. However, due process is required and the Government must pay for the land, oddly this wasn't always true. States could take land without Due Process, presuming their State Constitution didn't call for it being otherwise, for most of the 1800's. The Supreme Court ruled that they couldn't be judging from afar every eminent domain case that involved economic development.

Your breezy hand waving of the controversy is charming for its simplicity, in spite of your acknowledging that most on the right and left thought New London to be a thuggish alliance of government and private interests. Let's rinse off the white-wash, and let's give another go at it.

As elaborated upon in your link... it started when the City, a private development corporation, and Pfizer who reached an agreement to take Kelo's home, and all those in her neighborhood, with their no choice of "buy-in" through eminent domain, i.e. the use the law to take their property whether they wanted to or not, at a price the government-developer considered "just compensation".

Ms. Kelo, who had purchased her two-bedroom pink house in 1997 on the Thames River - a waterfront property, restored her house and garden. But she, and a number of others, decided to fight government-corporate takeover through more than protest and complaint, and filed a suit hoping to stop (or overturn) condemnation.

The NLDC, using ED through the City, planned to take all the land in Kelo's working class neighborhood and transfer it to a private developer who would "in turn build an expensive hotel for Pfizer visitors, expensive condos for Pfizer employees, an office building for biotech companies, and other projects to complement the Pfizer facility. "

You "supported it" because you think 'due process was had' and (strangely) 'those people didn't have a problem with ED' till they were abused by it. So you supported merely because the government had the power to do it (regardless of how that power is used) and because you believe that those losing their homes didn't complain until they were victimized (so one supposes by that logic if you never complained about mugging or false arrest, then you ought not to fight being mugged or falsely arrested) Correct?

Be reminded of two elementary principles:

a) For any agent, the mere power to do "X" does not make "X" the right thing to do.
b) People should not be punished because they don't complain about it until they actually are punished.

In short: your "support" of Kelo is based on some sort of personal animosity to those who will not submit to authority and actually fight for their homes. Why do you resent those who resist the State - is it like resisting a God?

Curious.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Did I say I supported the eminent domain plan? I supported the decision by SCOTUS and did mock the bare minority who didn't seem to have problems with Connecticut passing eminent domain for economic development.

 

[dismal]

Right-wingers were against it because white people were losing their property.

Is this a joke?

Have you forgotten back before all the racial healing that Obama brought us everything was not racism and people did not go about casually making inappropriate racist accusations like this?

Left-wingers were against it because people were losing their property.

Is this a joke?

Since when have leftists been against taking private property?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I have a personal stake in this decision because Best Buy figured out it was cheaper for the city to condemn property and sell it to them (for basically $1) and one of my friends businesses were among the condemned properties. This case was making its way through the courts (actually headed to SCOTUS), when the Kelo decision was reached. The MN Supremes had also allowed non-public taking. The legislature has re-written the law allowing eminent domain here.