Eminent Domain

[Lowbrow]

Conn. Resident Seek to Keep Their Homes

Tue Feb 22, 4:30 AM ET

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

LINK

WASHINGTON - Residents trying to hang onto their homes in a working class neighborhood of New London, Conn., are waging a battle in the Supreme Court over their city government's attempt to seize property for private economic development.

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to bulldoze their residences to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to move, arguing it was an unconstitutional taking of their property.

The case's outcome will have significant implications for so-called eminent domain actions.

There have been over 10,000 instances in recent years of private property being threatened with condemnation or actually condemned by government for private use, according to the Institute for Justice. The group represents the New London residents who filed the case.

The issue revolves around whether a government is serving a public purpose when it uses its power of eminent domain to take land. The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. The New London case is not about the amount of compensation being offered, but whether the government can take the property at all.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has deferred to the decision-making of elected state and local officials.

The court said in 1954 that it is legal for urban renewal to encompass non-blighted commercial buildings in a blighted neighborhood. In 1984, the court upheld Hawaii's land reform law that broke the grip of large landowners, with property being taken and then resold to others.

More recently, many cities and towns have been accused of abusing their authority, razing nice homes to make way for parking lots for casinos and other tax-producing businesses.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. City leaders say the private development will generate tax revenue and improve the local economy.

"The undisputed facts regarding the steady deterioration of New London's economy from the 1970s onwards demonstrate the dire need for such a development project," the city told the court.

The New London neighborhood that would be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families.

Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for over 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

Anthony Williams, who is president of the National League of Cities, says the power of eminent domain is one of the most important tools city officials have to rejuvenate their neighborhoods.

"Where would Baltimore be without the Inner Harbor, Kansas City without the Kansas Speedway, Canton, Miss., without its new Nissan plant?" Williams said.

The case is Kelo v. City of New London, 04-108.

I think this is a very interesting case. It has me glued to my radio.

[Lowbrow]

The pro-seizure lawyer stated that the city could seize the property of a Hotel Six to build something like a Hyatt there because it would generate more taxes.

[pineda]

This is very interesting, thanks for posting it!

This brings to mind again one of the main reasons I am so opposed to the Grand Parkway. When the idea first began with Bob Lanier some forty years ago, the Texas Dept. of Transportation gave permission for the building of the Grand Parkway under the auspices of a private-run corporation known as the Grand Parkway Association as long as the GPA could promise to TxDOT that all land required would be donated by private landowners themselves.

Of course, this has morphed from that promise to now a possible collaboration between TxDOT, GPA and HCTRA in which the project is no longer called a solution to alleviate local traffic congestion, but a "regional" mobility solution, which is a big change from the plans even five years ago.

This Pandora's box was opened all those years when TxDOT believed Bob and his buddies that they would get all the land donated. Why would anyone want to donate their land to this project in the first place? Because where the land was located, it was very inaccessible by any major roads, it was extremely rural and therefore almost worthless. However, if you had a major project like the Grand Parkway rolling by (or through) your property, all of a sudden, you had access. (For some interesting (to me, at least) reading, research how Bob and his buddies got those properties in the first places (hint: University Savings, remember them?).

Now the project has morphed again into "no feeder roads" recently. Well, guess what, nobody wants to donate land, because they don't see any benefit to having a road run right through the middle of an area that they have no access to at all. The exits are far and wide apart, some are many miles apart.

Plus, now TxDOT says they're outa money and any new project must be a tolled project, so now the Grand Parkway is changing into the Grand Tollway.

HCTRA is studying revenue estimates, and sending feelers out in this community that unless certain landowners play ball with them, that they can and will be using eminent domain to seize their property by forced arbitration hearings.

Meanwhile, former Mayor Bob has re-evaluated his stance concerning the Grand Parkway and no longer thinks this is a viable project, course he's already got his pile of dough from it, and no one seems to care what he says these days.

Makes a person wonder where you can live these days without worrying when you'll be receiving your own personal invitation to a condemnation hearing because it's been decided by some quasi-governmental groups that for the good of all of us, it's time for you to pack up and leave. Maybe TxDOT would be happiest if we all just became apartment dwellers instead...

[N Judah]

I'm no expert, but I wonder how this supreme court decision would affect tollways in general. Maybe tollways fall under a "city government's attempt to seize property for private economic development" because tollways are backed by bonds which are bought by private investors. Also, tollways are by nature private since not just anyone can ride around on it for free. And the profits from tollways (if my memory serves me correctly) are not always redirected into projects which the general public can use.

[pineda]

FYI - Bill introduced to reduce TTC corridor to 800 ft.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILL FILED TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS IN TRANS TEXAS CORRIDOR LEGISLATION

For Immediate Release

Monday, February 21, 2005

~ Central Texas Legislators Want to Protect Rural and Limit Private Sector Control of the Road ~

Austin -- Three Central Texas Legislators, State Representatives Lois Kolkhorst (Brehnam), Robby Cook (Eagle Lake) and Dennis Bonnen (Angleton), have filed HB1273 which addresses some frequent criticisms of the Trans Texas Corridor package passed last session.