Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

Susette Kelo of New London sought not only to protect her property rights but yours as well.�� The Supreme Court�s decision in Kelo v. New London, which gave governments the right to take an individual�s home or property and transfer it to private business for financial gain accomplished two things.� It gave the rich, powerful, and politically connected the right to invade the sanctity of our homes while extending permission to local politicians to transfer ownership to the highest bidder.�� This decision also galvanized Americans throughout our country to protect their property rights through solidarity.�� Americans know that property rights are the key to a free society.� Americans know that it is taxpayer dollars which government officials are spending to take their homes and fight them through the courts.��

Read below what one Connecticut town has done to protect its citizens.� Read below Governor Rell�s statement of support to protect Connecticut property owners.

Now it is your turn!� Here is what you can do to protect your property rights and defend the property rights of those in New London.�
First, ask your local town council to enact an ordinance similar to that of Milford (see below).�

Second,� call the leaders of the State House and Senate (refer to the list below) and ask them to immediately go into special session to enact legislation to protect our individual property rights.� Ask them if they are on the side of developers and special interests or on your side and those who live in New London?�

Third, contact your congressman at the following link and tell him to enact federal legislation which will protect our property rights and reverse the Supreme Court decision.� http://www.teachct.org/congress.htm

WE MUST ALL ACT QUICKLY TO

PROTECT OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND

THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO LIVE IN NEW LONDON!

PLEASE

PICK UP THE PHONE TODAY AND

MAKE THE CALL or SEND AN EMAIL!

CONNECTICUT�
House Democrats:�� (800) 842-1902
Democrat Majority Leader Christopher Donovan

Email:� Christopher.Donovan@cga.ct.gov

House Republicans:�� (800) 842-1423

Republican Minority Leader Robert Ward

Email: Robert.Ward@housegop.state.ct.us

Senate Democrats:�� (800) 842-1420

Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney

Email:� Looney@senatedems.ct.gov

Senate Republicans:�� (800) 842-1421

Senate Republican Leader Louis C. DeLuca

Email:� Louis.Deluca@cga.ct.gov

******************

FCTO CONGRATULATES

THE MILFORD BOARD OF ALDERMAN

�

FOR LEADING CONNECTICUT IN ADDRESSING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON EMINENT DOMAIN�

On June 23, 2005,� the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize private property under eminent domain for use in private commercial redevelopment.

On July 11, 2005, the City of Milford assumed a leadership role in protecting its property owners from this abuse of power by unanimously enacting the following Ordinance.� The remaining 168 Connecticut towns/cities should pursue similar action to protect its citizens.� I would, however, make two suggestions. Cities/towns must be prohibited from taking property by eminent domain, retaining the property rights, and leasing the property or air rights to a private developer.� Further, businesses and churches must also be protected from government seizure of their properties.

Further, all local government officials and local citizens should demand that their State Legislators immediately go into special session to protect the rights of property owners in New London and throughout our state against government take over� for financial� gain by private interests.�� Demands must also be put upon our representatives in Congress to reverse the Supreme Court�s decision.� Local, state and federal elected officials who choose the side of developers and special interests over the interests of private property owners should not be returned to office� in 2006 or 2007. Susan Kniep

***************

The following is the Milford Ordinance.�

Please consider including protection for businesses and churches as well. Susan Kniep

�AN ORDINANCE ENACTING ARTICLE I, SECTION 2-5, ADMINISTRATION,

OF THE MILFORD CODE OF ORDINANCES

(Prohibiting acquisition of certain property by eminent domain

for privately held or controlled economic development purposes)

WHEREAS,�� the Board of Aldermen of the City of Milford wishes to express its respect for the rights of its citizens who own and reside in residential real property in this City;� and

WHEREAS,� the Board of Aldermen of the City of Milford believes that a primary responsibility of government is to protect private property and home ownership;� and

WHEREAS,� the Board of Aldermen of the City of Milford views the United States Supreme Court�s decision in Kelo et al. v. New London et al. as a threat to citizens of the City of Milford who own residential real estate and live in their homes; and

WHEREAS,� it is the intention of this ordinance to prevent the application of the Kelo decision in this community by prohibiting the acquisition of certain owner-occupied residential real property by eminent domain for use in a municipal development project where the property would be privately owned or controlled and where the process would result in the homeowner�s losing his home.

NOW THEREFORE Be It Ordained and Enacted by the Board of Aldermen of the City Of Milford that �2-5 of the Milford Code of Ordinances is hereby enacted as follows:

2-5 Eminent Domain Powers Limited

Within the territorial limits of the City of Milford, no owner-occupied residential real property consisting of four or fewer dwelling units may be acquired by eminent domain for economic development purposes pursuant to General Statutes �8-128 to 8-133 inclusive, if the resulting project will be privately owned or controlled.� Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the use of eminent domain powers for public purposes including but not limited to the construction of sewers, highways, sidewalks, rights of way, flood, shore and erosion control purposes or for any other transaction where the property rights acquired will be held or controlled by the City of Milford.� This ordinance shall not conflict with any subsequently enacted State law on this subject matter.

**************

From the Office of Governor Jodi Rell��

CONTACT: Dennis Schain, 860-524-7313�� 

dennis.schain@po.state.ct.us

July 11, 2005

Statement of Governor M. Jodi Rell on

Call for Legislative Hearings on Eminent Domain

�� Governor M. Jodi Rell today issued the following statement after legislative leaders announced a plan to hold public hearings on the use of eminent domain for economic development projects:

�� This issue is the 21st century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party: the government taking away the rights and liberties of property owners without giving them a voice. But this time it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting � it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington.

�� I support the idea of public hearings on how and when eminent domain should be used, especially for projects when blight is not an issue. I believe firmly that the rights of property owners come first.

�� The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Fort Trumbull redevelopment case has rightly created enormous concern among homeowners. I have heard from people who worry that their rights might be superseded by a municipality�s desire � however well-intentioned � to create new opportunities for growth and revenue.

�� Home ownership is often referred to as �the American Dream.� Our homes are the places where we raise our families and build our lives. When government intrudes on our homes, it must have a defensible reason. In the New London case, the reason was not defensible.

�� Defining the right reasons for using eminent domain is properly the task of the Legislature. That is one reason why I have supported Representative Ward�s call for the General Assembly to convene a special session to discuss this issue. Public hearings are the first step to establishing those critical definitions. We should do this right � but we should not let the matter drag on for months.�

�� The Governor also said she supported asking municipalities to forestall any eminent domain proceedings until the Legislature has acted.

**************

Other Items of Interest and Comments on Eminent Domain

From:�� philneo2001@yahoo.com�

July 11, 2005

The following letter appeared today, July 11, in The Day, a newspaper circulating in New London. I urge you to email Scott Sawyer, at sawyerlawyer@myeastern.com, suggesting that he file the petition for rehearing based on this argument.� Please note that the petition must be at the Court by the close of business on Friday.� Cordially yours,� John Ryskamp

The Day� July 11, 2005 Go For A �rehearing' On Eminent Domain

Letters To The Editor:The Kelo homeowners can petition the court for a rehearing �on the merits,� which is Rule 44. The court will grant rehearings to consider �historicalevidence� bearing on the framers' intent. The Kelo case is based on the Fifth Amendment. When James Madison presented it to Congress, he said that it �prevents every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.� When he said �every,� he meant a fact of the individual. A fact of the individual is a fact of human experience, which does
not change even when government seeks to destroy it.� A fact of the individual is one in which government: seeks to eliminate the fact; at best only succeeds or would, if allowed, only succeed, in eliminating incarnations of it; in the process violates other rights; brings to bear a disproportionate effort; and does not consider alternatives which could achieve the goal.

Housing is such a fact: New London seeks to destroy this housing; New London itself has granted that these homeowners will have to, and will, seek other housing; association, speech and several other protected facts are sought to be destroyed by this eminent domain action; the Kelo eminent-domain action is part of a nationwide, well thought-out plan between developers and politicians to use eminent domain to turn housing Over to private developers; and the Kelo eminent domain action is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government purpose. If the Kelo homeowners present this argument to the court, they will save their housing. ��John Ryskamp,Berkeley, Calif

***************

Keyword

Click the above word � Keyword � and you will travel to an interesting site re the Kelo case and eminent domain around the country including Canada. There are photos also. We have certainly made a name for outselves here in New London and we're certainly embarrassed by it although it may turn out to be a good thing if it can close the loopholes in the eminent domain laws and save the homes in Fort Trumbull.

Kathleen Mitchell�� Orkenizer44@aol.com

************

July 10, 2005:� From an article in today's local newspaper The Day. We must find more ways to keep up the pressure!

"...David Goebel, the chief operating officer of the New London Development Corp., the agency that manages the Fort Trumbull project for the city, says the growing dissent with the Supreme Court decision is damaging to the project, at least for now. He says this negativity is unfortunate at a time when the city, mired in a financial crisis, is pressed for new development.

�I think it will definitely have an impact on the public perception of the project until it's all done and we're though this period,� Goebel said. �Right now the big loser in this is the city, and the city is the one that can't afford to lose. The city has lost for the five years of this litigation.�

He and others at the NLDC have been frustrated that that public has rallied around the seven Fort Trumbull owners out of the idea that they are losing their family homes, when in fact several of them own investment properties they lease out to tenants."

As far as I know there is only one property owner who has purchased property in the Fort for investment but even he has put alot of money and work into the property. He may even be moving back himself in order to run for City Council. We need to get rid of this council.

If anyone has any ideas of ways to continue the pressure on NLDC and the City Council, let me know. Kathleen Mitchell Orkenizer44@aol.com

************

Eminent domain ruling puts land owners on edge

Monday, July 11, 2005

By Will Siss

NAUGATUCK -- Richard Smith, an accountant who owns Duffy's Tavern on Water Street, is ready for an eminent domain battle over the borough's downtown redevelopment project known as Renaissance Place. Rep. Kevin M. DelGobbo, R-Naugatuck, who supports the project, said it's a battle that does not have to be waged. A month after the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can force property owners to sell their property to allow for private development, downtown borough business owners with land within the scope of Renaissance Place are especially on edge about government interference with their livelihood. Smith, 60, said Thursday that he would put a model of a large artillery piece on top of his building and point it at Town Hall down Maple Street if his business was threatened.� "I'm an American and I believe in our Constitution," Smith said at his accountancy office at 98 Water St., next to the tavern. The project, which could take 15 years to complete, is in the "pre-development" stage while Fairfield developer Alexius C. Conroy creates a financial plan to submit to the borough by September. Conroy told business owners a meeting last month that they essentially had two options: negotiate a lease and continue renting from him, or relocate. He said he might consider letting current owners retain their property, but said it was "not normally done" in developments of this type. Borough burgesses have voted to make the Naugatuck Economic Development Corp., a nonprofit group made up primarily of borough business owners, the borough's "development agency" and "redevelopment agency." That means that the agency would have to make any decision to pursue eminent domain. Renaissance Place calls for building apartments, hotels, stores, parking and mixed-use buildings west of the Naugatuck River.

In its second phase, which could be several years away, "Maple Street Apartments" would stand where Duffy's, Rosenblatt's clothing store and Burnsie's have stood together for more than 50 years. According to a plan posted on www.naugatuckrenaissanceplace.com, the apartment complex also would replace Nardelli's deli, which has shared the corner with the other businesses since the late 1970s. "Why would they want to mess with a corner that's successful?" Smith said. DelGobbo, a member of the development agency, said he did not think it would resort to taking over the buildings. "Eminent domain is an outrageous extension of government power to take property and then turn it over to someone else," DelGobbo said. "It's not my intention that anything we do is going to roll over any property owner." This month, DelGobbo was the first to co-sponsor legislation introduced by Rep. Robert M. Ward, R-North Branford, to limit the government's ability to take property for private development.

**************

Eminent domain column raises readers' ire

Connecticut Post

Friday's column on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that allows governments to use eminent domain to seize private property for commercial development, as long as fair market value is paid, brought some strong feedback.� In it we described how in the late 1990s, Bridgeport officials used eminent domain to oust hundreds of people from their homes and businesses to clear the way for a commercial development at Steel Point that has yet to be built.

(In the latest attempt to revive that project, the 2005 state Legislature, during the final seconds of the session, created a "taxing district" designed to generate $190 million � may we ask? � for "infrastructure improvements at Steel Point. One knowledgeable person we know called the taxing district financing system "tricky at best.")

Wilfredo Mendoza of Maryland describes how his parents lost their Stratford home of 30 years.� "They were forced out of the home where my brother and sisters grew up," he writes. "Even the small settlement check they were given bounced when they tried to purchase another home. "We tried to hire an attorney but everyone was afraid to take our neighborhood's cause. I tried to contact [U.S. Rep. Christopher] Shays but he would not return my letters, calls, nor e-mails because I am in the military [Air Force] and stationed in Maryland, but I am still a legal resident of Connecticut. "When I am asked where I come from I am usually ashamed to provide an answer, because how many families were mistreated by the Harbour Place project. My father, [who] has worked and lived in Bridgeport for over 50 years, is example No. 1. "I hope there are enough jail cells for everyone involved in this project mess."

Robert Perugini of Milford describes what happened to the home where he grew up in Milford. "[The house] was taken by the state of Connecticut by eminent domain for a pittance," he writes. "A family lawyer, as well as a state legislator who also lost his home for the same reason, protested to the committee in Hartford to no avail. The committee's reply to our presentation was that the state was going to build a state park at the site. "It took nearly 40 years for [Silver Sands State Park] to be completed, thanks to the 'Chicken Lady' [the late Doris Gagnon] who demanded 'squatters rights' for most of those years. In reality the developer who built [some nearby] condos wanted the beach houses destroyed so that the new condo owners would have an unrestricted and pleasant view of the water and Charles Island. "I can only imagine what took place with the developer and the politicians of Milford and their representatives in the state Legislature in Hartford concerning the destruction of homes at Silver [Sands] for the reason of eminent domain!"

Harry F. Armstrong III, writing from Baghram Air Base in Iraq, has three suggestions on what to do about the corrupt politicians who use eminent domain for personal gain. 1. Vote the bums out in the next election. 2. Insist elected politicians agree only to use eminent domain after a vote by the people authorizing the taking of another person's property for just compensation, and allow this only for a compelling public purpose. 3. Vote out the representatives and senators in the General Assembly � and this includes those outside New London � who refused to come back into special session to address whether our corrupt politicians should have the power to believe any fairy tale told to them by a developer who lusts after the property of private citizens.

Charles Walsh's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. You can reach him by phone at 330-6217 or bye-mail at cwalsh@ctpost.com.

*****************

Government:� Your Land is my Land

It is horrible to think that the government's thought is "Your land is my land." We have been fighting property rights issues here in NC as well, know as forced annexation. I am extremely passionate in our fight for property rights. It is time we all make a stand to be heard! United we stand, divided we fall. I firmly believe this to be true! Eminent Domain and Forced Annexation targets the elderly, and low to middle class families, and it needs to be stopped now. The Mayor of Winston-Salem NC is president of the Winston-Salem Alliance (A supposedly non-profit organization), Winston Salem Business, Inc. and many other boards involving the City's economic developments. I wonder which organization, if not all, are skimming money off the top. I know this is going on in other places, such as your town, and others. It is time we all stand and fight for our rights!� God Bless You,� Kelliene Fisher � specialone@snet.net

**************

Public 'interest' shouldn't mean money

-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT YOUNG <ryoung0@snet.net>
To: hoploans@snet.net
Sent: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 18:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Wethersfield Concerned Citizens - Public 'interest' shouldn't mean money

Public 'interest' shouldn't mean money

July 3, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn03.html

Do you know Nancy Pelosi? Her job is leading the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. They should have asked for references. Here's her reaction to the Supreme Court's recent decision on "eminent domain":

"It is a decision of the Supreme Court," said the minority leader. "So this is almost as if God has spoken."

That's not the way Abraham Lincoln saw it:

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers." I'm with Abe.� Article continued at the following website�.� http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn03.html