HoNoToGroABeMo Day Thirty-One: It Is Done
6 years ago
9:58 AM
The Kelo Case.. do we really OWN anything???
Mister Nizz
Revisiting the Kelo case of 23 June
Susette Kelo was among several residents of New London, Conn., who sued the city after officials announced plans to knock down their homes to make room for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
As you might know by now, the Supreme Court sided with the developers and city of New London (where I lived as a child, btw). Majority: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer. Dissenting: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue."
In Dissent, Justice O'Connor wrote: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
This case touches upon private property rights and the rights of municipalities to seize property for "the public good". In the past, the U.S. has narrowly defined the public good as schools, highways, railroads, infrastructure items, etc. This is the first case I know of where commercial developers have made a case that putting up a shopping mall is defined as a public good.
So we've now entered into a new phase of living where commercial real estate developers can seize our property, right? Check out the sequel:
The city now says that since it won the case, the homeowners actually have been living on city property since 2000 when it first began condemnation procedures against them, so they must pay back rent – to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. -- Worldnetdaily.com
That's right... New London CT now states that the owners of the properties owe THEM back rent because they have been living on the properties since 2000.. now mind you, most of these people will be reimbursed for the property value of their homes as they were assessed back in 2000, not in 2006. That means that they will be paid significantly under the amount they could get if they sold their properties now, in the real estate market of 2006. And if New London gets its way, they probably won't see a dime because of the back rent due. I've never seen such a case of malicious prosecution in my life.
Shame on you, New London CT!
Of course, there's some grim satisfaction in all this. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, too. Citizen groups have banded together in two municipalities to seize the vacation homes of Justices Souter and Breyer:
Effort to take Breyer's home moving ahead
Movement builds to seize Souter's home
Right on!
Maybe this will work or maybe it won't, but it should send a message to the people that make decisions that effect the lives of all Americans-- they are not above the laws they set for us to have live with.
Hopefully this is a decision that can be overturned... we've done it before, we can do it again!
Susette Kelo was among several residents of New London, Conn., who sued the city after officials announced plans to knock down their homes to make room for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
As you might know by now, the Supreme Court sided with the developers and city of New London (where I lived as a child, btw). Majority: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer. Dissenting: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue."
In Dissent, Justice O'Connor wrote: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
This case touches upon private property rights and the rights of municipalities to seize property for "the public good". In the past, the U.S. has narrowly defined the public good as schools, highways, railroads, infrastructure items, etc. This is the first case I know of where commercial developers have made a case that putting up a shopping mall is defined as a public good.
So we've now entered into a new phase of living where commercial real estate developers can seize our property, right? Check out the sequel:
The city now says that since it won the case, the homeowners actually have been living on city property since 2000 when it first began condemnation procedures against them, so they must pay back rent – to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. -- Worldnetdaily.com
That's right... New London CT now states that the owners of the properties owe THEM back rent because they have been living on the properties since 2000.. now mind you, most of these people will be reimbursed for the property value of their homes as they were assessed back in 2000, not in 2006. That means that they will be paid significantly under the amount they could get if they sold their properties now, in the real estate market of 2006. And if New London gets its way, they probably won't see a dime because of the back rent due. I've never seen such a case of malicious prosecution in my life.
Shame on you, New London CT!
Of course, there's some grim satisfaction in all this. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, too. Citizen groups have banded together in two municipalities to seize the vacation homes of Justices Souter and Breyer:
Effort to take Breyer's home moving ahead
Movement builds to seize Souter's home
Right on!
Maybe this will work or maybe it won't, but it should send a message to the people that make decisions that effect the lives of all Americans-- they are not above the laws they set for us to have live with.
Hopefully this is a decision that can be overturned... we've done it before, we can do it again!
