May 30, 2012
From Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website: http://ctact.org/
Email: fctopresident@aol.com
Telephone: 860-841-8032
Will Your Town Follow East Hartford’s
Lead?
As Town
Officials Propose to Designate the Entire
Town as
“Deteriorated,
Deteriorating, Substandard or Detrimental to the safety, health, welfare or general
economic well being of the community”!
And Its Legal - By State Statute!
http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap203.htm#Sec12-65d.htm
A recent
article by the Associated Press on May 30, 2012 captioned Columbia activists fight urban blight
label notes that in Columbia, Illinois “Opponents say the label will
lower property values and could make it easier for local government to seize
property under eminent domain laws.” Columbia, Illinios residents are responding to the “city of Columbia's effort to
classify certain neighborhoods as blighted to help businesses secure tax
credits.”
Although similar to what is being proposed for East
Hartford, as Columbia, Illinois
residents express their concerns for classifying certain neighborhoods under a blight designation, East Hartford is proposing “Pursuant to
Connecticut General Statutes 12-65d to designate the entire Town of East
Hartford as a Rehabilitation Area as defined by Connecticut General Statues
Section 12-65c(a)” and as noted within the following ImproveEHResolution05-15-12.pdf.
The concerns of Columbia
residents for Eminent Domain abuse are legitimate as homeowners and businesses throughout
the country are fighting back through the courts as blight designations are
being falsely applied to their properties to facilitate eminent domain
takings. On their side is the Institute of Justice as noted within the following PropertyProf Blog: The
Institute for Justice Wins California Blight Case. And Blight? Same Story Different Town | The
Institute for Justice .
The Institute of Justice is a familiar name in the State of Connecticut as they championed the cause of Susette Kelo and her neighbors in
2005 in their attempt to keep their homes from being seized by the City of New London for the
benefit of private developers.
Although Susette and her neighbors
lost their homes to Eminent Domain – where the property sits vacant today as
noted in the article captioned – Connecticut Agency Seeks to Whitewash Its Role in Kelo Eminent Domain Abuse - Susette will go
down in history as the patriot of our time in leading citizens throughout the
country who have successfully called for the elimination of or reforms to State
Eminent Domain laws. Regrettably little
success was realized in Connecticut’s
State Legislature.
In 2005, while working with Susette
and her neighbors in an effort to keep their homes, I was invited to participate
in a Forum sponsored by The Federalist Society at the State Capital. The four participants were myself,
Attorney Wesley Horton of Hartford, who
represented New London
in the landmark Kelo v. New London case, Attorney
Dana Berliner of the Institute for Justice, which represented the Fort Trumbull
property owners in the case, and Attorney John Rose Jr., corporation counsel
for the City of Hartford. My comments are noted within the following EMINENT DOMAIN AFTER KELO.
Therein, I echoed the words of John Adams, our country’s
second president, when reflecting upon the passion of our forefathers on property
rights issues….. "The moment the idea is admitted into society
that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of
law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must
be sacred or liberty cannot exist."
As Columbia, Illinois residents express their concerns for classifying
“certain neighborhoods” under a blight designation, Connecticut General
Statutes allows such classification for an entire town under 12-65c(a): "Rehabilitation area" means any municipality, or a part
thereof, which is deteriorated, deteriorating, substandard or detrimental to
the safety, health, welfare or general economic well-being of the community.
To fully appreciate the impact of these State Statutes on
your property within the 169 towns through Connecticut, you may wish to click on and read Sec. 12-65d. Designation of rehabilitation
area. Criteria for deferral of assessment increase. And Sec. 8-24. Municipal improvements .
The Statutes note
that in addition to a town scheduling a public hearing on a proposed
Rehabilitation Area there are other requirements which involve a Town’s
Planning and Zoning Commission with reference to a Town Plan.
Town Plans are
required to be updated every 10 years by the State of Connecticut. East Hartford Town Plan
approved in 2003, must be updated by 2013. You should check to determine when the Town
Plan in your town is due to be updated.
Where Zoning
Regulations and Maps clarify what exists today, a Town Plan and Map is what a
Town is proposing for the future.
The end result
could be your property carrying a designation in a Town Plan contrary to the
Zone your property is currently designated, or the redirection of a road or a
new road near or through your property, and more.
If the Town Plan
and/or Map reflect something different than how your property, your neighbors’ property
or your general area is currently designated on a Zoning Map, you risk the
possibility that a developer could make an application to change the Zone in
accordance with the Town Plan and
ultimately succeed - if not through a local Town Planning and Zoning Commission
- than on an appeal through the courts.
I live in East Hartford and can attest to the many fine homes and
businesses in our Town which evidence the time and expense families have
dedicated to maintaining their properties.
They certainly do not conform to
the definition of “Deteriorated, Deteriorating, Substandard or Detrimental to
the safety, health, welfare or general economic well being of the community”!
In summary, if the
Town of East Hartford or any of the other 168 Connecticut Towns can designate
an entire town as a Rehabilitation Area under State
Statutes and definitions, when in fact the
majority of properties are not blighted, does that constitute fraud or trickery
by our public officials? And more importantly, could your town
officials in another town be in the process of a proposal similar
to East Hartford’s!
You may wish to
query the public officials in your town – or at least - determine when your
Town Plan is due to be revised and if those revisions will impact your own personal
property or business.
In conclusion, the
author of NJ
Spotlight | Opinion: 'Blighted' by Any Other Name . . . notes “And
so comes the frequent descent into eminent domain abuse -- the taking of
viable, nonblighted properties to hand over to big
name redevelopers who promise pie in the sky at no cost to taxpayers --
hastened along on the slippery slope of a statutory euphemism. Thankfully, the
State Supreme Court has forcefully stepped in to remind local governments,
planners, and lower courts that regardless of the name lawmakers choose, only
"actually blighted properties" may be included within "deemed
redevelopment areas," and doing so cannot be based on claims that the
properties will be put to a better use after transfer to someone else.The wake up call to local governments was the "Gallenthin v. Paulsboro" case handed down in the
summer of 2007. (Disclosure: this law firm represented Gallenthin,
and my law partner orally argued the appeal that was supported by the Public
Advocate, Ronald Chen.) and is continued at http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0306/2353/
*******************
The following are the Connecticut State Statutes which apply……
Title 12 Chapters 201 to 229a (Secs. 12-1 to 12-834)
Sec. 12-65d. Designation
of rehabilitation area. Criteria for
deferral of assessment increase. (a) The
legislative body of any municipality may, in accordance with the provisions of
sections 12-65c to 12-65f,
inclusive, adopt a resolution designating such municipality, or any part
thereof, as a rehabilitation area and establishing criteria for eligibility of
real property within the area so designated for deferral, as provided in
section 12-65e, of any increased assessment attributable to rehabilitation or
new construction. Such criteria shall include the initial condition of the
property, the extent and nature of improvements compatible with the plan of
development of the municipality and subdivision and zoning regulations, if any,
and in compliance with such state building and health codes and local housing
code requirements, as may apply, and acceptable uses for such property. Such
criteria shall be determined with the advice of the local building official and
housing code enforcement officer or other authority designated by the
municipality to enforce the provisions of sections 19a-355, 47a-14a to 47a-14g,
inclusive, 47a-51, 47a-53, 47a-54, 47a-54a, 47a-55, 47a-56, 47a-56a, 47a-56d to
47a-56j, inclusive, and 47a-57 to 47a-61, inclusive.
(b) No such resolution or criteria shall be
adopted (1) until after a public hearing, notice of the time, place and purpose
of which shall be given by publication in a newspaper having a general
circulation in the municipality at least twice, at intervals of not less than
two days, the first not more than fifteen days nor less than ten days and the
last not less than two days prior to the date of such hearing; and (2)
following such hearing, in any municipality having a planning commission or
combined planning and zoning commission, such proposal has been referred to
such commission for a report in accordance with the provisions of section 8-24,
and in the event such commission disapproves the proposal, the vote on adoption
by the municipality shall be in accordance with the provisions of said section
8-24.
(c) Notice of the adoption of the
resolution and criteria shall be published by the legislative body, in a
newspaper having a general circulation in the municipality, not later than
fifteen days after its adoption. A copy of such resolution and criteria shall
be filed in the office of the town clerk of such municipality.
(P.A. 73-558, S. 2; P.A. 74-190, S. 1, 3;
P.A. 79-607, S. 20, 22.)
History: P.A. 74-190 substituted
"real" for "residential" property in Subsec.
(a); P.A. 79-607 included deferrals for new construction.
Sec. 12-65c. Deferral of increased assessments due to
rehabilitation: Definitions. As used in sections 12-65c to 12-65f, inclusive:
(a) "Rehabilitation area" means any
municipality, or a part thereof, which is deteriorated, deteriorating,
substandard or detrimental to the safety, health, welfare or general economic
well-being of the community;
(b)
"Rehabilitation" means the improvement or repair of a structure or
facilities appurtenant thereto, exclusive of general maintenance or minor
repairs.
Sec. 12-65e. Agreements to fix assessments
during, and defer increases following, rehabilitation or construction. Required provisions. Any municipality which has adopted a resolution, in
accordance with the provisions of section 12-65d, designating such municipality
or any part thereof as a rehabilitation area, may, upon application of the
owner of any real property located in such area who agrees to rehabilitate such
property or construct new multifamily rental housing or cooperative housing on
such property, enter into an agreement to fix the assessment of the property,
during the period of rehabilitation or construction, as of the date of the
agreement, but for not longer than seven years, and upon completion of such
rehabilitation or construction, to defer any increase in assessment attributable
to such rehabilitation or construction for a period not to exceed eleven years,
contingent upon the continued use of the property for the purposes specified in
the agreement, provided such property meets the criteria established by such
municipality in accordance with section 12-65d and provided further such
deferral shall be determined as follows: For the first year following
completion of such rehabilitation or construction, the entire increase shall be
deferred; thereafter a minimum of ten per cent of the increase shall be
assessed against the property each year until one hundred per cent of such
increase has been so assessed. The agreement shall provide that, in the event
of a general revaluation by the municipality in the year in which such rehabilitation
or construction is completed resulting in any increase in the assessment on
such property, only that portion of the increase resulting from such
rehabilitation or construction shall be deferred; and in the event of a general
revaluation in any year after the year in which such rehabilitation or
construction is completed, such deferred assessment shall be increased or
decreased in proportion to the increase or decrease in the total assessment on
such property as a result of such general revaluation. Such agreement shall
further provide that such rehabilitation or construction shall be completed by
a date fixed by the municipality and that the completed rehabilitation or
construction shall be subject to inspection and certification by the local building
official as being in conformance with the criteria established under section
12-65d and such provisions of the state building and health codes and the local
housing code as may apply. Any such tax deferral shall be contingent upon the
continued use of the property for those purposes specified in the agreement
creating such deferral and such deferral shall cease upon the sale or transfer
of the property for any other purpose unless the municipality shall have
consented thereto.
Sec. 12-65f. Appeal. Any
person aggrieved by any decision or action, or failure to take action, by a
municipality under the provisions of sections 12-65c to 12-65e, inclusive, may
appeal within fifteen days of the notice of such decision or action, or in the
case of failure to take action, within fifteen days after the expiration of
sixty-five days from the date of the submission of the request for action to
the legislative body of the municipality, to the superior court for the
judicial district in which the municipality lies.
Title 8 Chapters 124 to 138k
(Secs. 8-1 to 8-438)
Zoning, Planning, Housing,
Economic and Community Development and Human Resources
Municipal Planning Commissions
Sec.
8-24. Municipal improvements. Sec. 8-24. Municipal
improvements. No municipal agency or legislative body shall (1) locate,
accept, abandon, widen, narrow or extend any street, bridge, parkway or other
public way, (2) locate, relocate, substantially improve, acquire land for,
abandon, sell or lease any airport, park, playground, school or other
municipally owned property or public building, (3) locate or extend any public
housing, development, redevelopment or urban renewal project, or (4) locate or
extend public utilities and terminals for water, sewerage, light, power,
transit and other purposes, until the proposal to take such action has been
referred to the commission for a report. Notwithstanding the provisions of this
section, a municipality may take final action approving an appropriation for
any proposal prior to the approval of the proposal by the commission pursuant
to this section. The failure of the commission to report within thirty-five
days after the date of official submission of the proposal to it for a report
shall be taken as approval of the proposal. In the case of the disapproval of
the proposal by the commission the reasons therefor
shall be recorded and transmitted to the legislative body of the municipality.
A proposal disapproved by the commission shall be adopted by the municipality
or, in the case of disapproval of a proposal by the commission subsequent to
final action by a municipality approving an appropriation for the proposal and
the method of financing of such appropriation, such final action shall be
effective, only after the subsequent approval of the proposal by (A) a
two-thirds vote of the town council where one exists, or a majority vote of
those present and voting in an annual or special town meeting, or (B) a
two-thirds vote of the representative town meeting or city council or the warden
and burgesses, as the case may be. The provisions of this section shall not
apply to maintenance or repair of existing property, buildings or public ways,
including, but not limited to, resurfacing of roads.