From: Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website: http://ctact.org/
email:fctopresident@ctact.org
860-841-8032
September 18, 2005
EMINENT
DOMAIN AFTER KELO:
WHAT
LIMITS? WHO DECIDES?
On
Friday, September 16, 2005, I participated 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.
The
topic was: EMINENT DOMAIN AFTER KELO: WHAT LIMITS? WHO DECIDES? The following
is a summary of my presentation, which was followed by a question and answer
segment. I have also included below the article on the Forum as written by The New London Day.
Presentation
by Susan Kniep
Thank you for
joining us today. I am not
an attorney but I bring to this forum the perspective of an average American.
An American who believes in the
doctrines developed by our forefathers which laid the
foundation for a free society void of undue government influence or power.
In essence,
a government, of, for and by the people of these United States as cemented in our
Constitution. That
very old document, written 200 years ago, which some will argue is a living
document and should be subject to change in accordance with the will of the
people over time and others who believe it is the basis of our democracy which
we must sustain as written and intended by our forefathers.
Regardless where you stand in the
constitutional debate, John Adams, our second president, said it best when
reflecting upon the passion of our forefathers on property rights issues when
he stated
the following
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.
The ensuing debate
in Congress regarding the appointment of John Roberts to the Supreme Court
places a direct focus on our Constitution. It also demonstrates our vulnerability as citizens of this
great country in that unlike the Executive and Legislative branches of
government, which reflect a system of checks and balances, the Judiciary at
times appears unchecked. Yet we,
the people, are subject to the dictates of the Supreme Court as it expands the
rights of some and restricts the rights of others.
The recent supreme court decision on Eminent
Domain did just that. It
restricted the rights of private homeowners in the utilization and retention of
their property and expanded the rights of the rich, powerful and politically
connected who were given a key to unlock our front door and invade the sanctity
of our homes. The
decision further served to uproot families on
homesteads passed down from generation to generation based not on government
need but instead on government greed.
Redevelopment is
the precursor to Eminent domain. It is
big business. It lines
the pockets of developers, lobbyists, attorneys, consultants, and those special
interests aligned with government officials who pass laws which undermine our
rights.
Elected public
officials yield their responsibilities to quasi public agencies which have
limited accountability to the public which finances them through their tax
dollars.
The New London
Development Corporation has received nearly $80 million of our tax dollars.
Former Governor Rowland, DECD Commissioner Ellef, and lobbyists associated
with them are the creators of this entity.
As 28 States pass
laws protecting their constituents from the abuse of eminent domain, Connecticut Democrats
sit complacently while Susette
Kelo and her neighbors are
subject to losing their homes.
The State
Office of Legislative Research on September 6, produced a document which states
and I quote Since the Kelo decision Alabama,
Delaware, and Texas have passed legislation restricting
the use of eminent domain. The Alabama
law bars the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes except in
blighted areas. It also gives the former owner of condemned property a right of
first refusal to repurchase the property if it is not used for a public use.
The Delaware
law requires that the power of eminent domain be exercised only for the
purposes of a recognized public use described at least six months in advance of
the taking. The Texas act (which has not yet been signed by the governor) bars
the use of eminent domain when (1) the taking confers a private benefit on a
particular private party; (2) the public use supporting the taking is merely a
pretext to confer a private benefit on a private party; or (3) the taking is
for economic development purposes, unless the economic development is a
secondary purpose resulting from municipal community development or urban
renewal activities to eliminate the harm caused by slum or blighted areas.
In addition, legislation has been introduced but not yet
adopted in at least 18 states. Most of these bills would bar or limit the use
of eminent domain for economic development or tax revenue enhancement purposes.
An Ohio
proposal would establish a moratorium through 2006 on the use of eminent domain
to take private property in unblighted
areas for economic development purposes. A New Jersey proposal would limit the use of
eminent domain to acquiring land for essential public purposes. A New York bill would
require local governments hold a vote to determine whether or not to condemn
property that would be transferred to private developers.
To respond to
the subject of the forum - What limits? I suggest that there can be no doubt of the intent of our
forefathers regarding property rights, as illustrated within our constitution.
Reflecting upon the words of John Adams, our
forefathers never intended for Americans to turn over their property so that
others would prosper and they would lose their property rights as proposed
by the Supreme Court.
Therefore,
federal, state and local governments must enact legislation to prohibit any
individual or group of individuals who promote a private commercial
development, from usurping the property rights of the private property owner.
Who decides?
The American citizen! The taxpayer! The
voter! Last evening I participated in a talk show which drew callers from all
over the country to include Milwaukee,Wisconsin, Chicago, and many other
states. There is a growing dissention among the public on this issue.
They are prepared to come to New London to protect the
property rights of those who are being victimized.
The Federation began an email campaign to
all of our members and concerned taxpayers to contact the Office of the Governor
and ask for her intervention when we learned that some New London homeowners had been served with
eviction notices this week. We
asked the Governor to intercede and to reinforce her order that a moratorium be
placed on eminent domain issues until the Legislature concluded its findings.
This morning we
awoke to learn that we have a hero in our State. That hero is Governor Rell, who came to the forefront to protect the
property rights of the citizens of New
London. Further,
I predict that those Connecticut legislators
who refuse to protect the property rights of Connecticut citizens will not be returned to
office in 2006.
What can be
done? Congress can put
pressure on the States by withholding federal funds if the States fail to
protect the property rights of their constituents.
Municipal
leaders can pass legislation to restrict eminent domain. Connecticut voters can
use their power at the polls to decide who stays and who goes in their State
and local governments based upon their leaders effectiveness in protecting
their property rights.
Governor Rell should move to take control
of the financial resources under the auspices of the New London Development Corporation, and this entity should
be disbanded. She
should demand an investigation and a forensic audit of state tax dollars given
to the NLDC.
And finally,
and most importantly, each one of us should stand firmly at the front door of Susette Kelo and her neighbors when New London officials attempt to remove them
from their homes.
*******
Passions
Still Running Deep, Divided On Issue Of
Eminent Domain - Fort Trumbull case discussed at Hartford forum
By PAUL CHOINIERE
New London Day,
Norwich Bureau Chief
Published on 9/17/2005
Hartford That the divide remains deep between those who regard eminent
domain as a useful tool to promote economic development and those who fear it's
a serious threat to liberty was clearly evident at a forum Friday at the state
Capitol.
Attorney Wesley Horton of Hartford,
who represented New London
in the landmark Kelo v. New London case,
defended the 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the city's right to use
eminent domain as a reasoned decision that provided guidelines intended to prevent
abuses in the taking of property for private development.
The cries of
outrage following the decision are overwrought, Horton suggested.
When you all leave
today and go outside ... take a deep breath, look up into the sky and notice
that it is not falling, Horton
told the audience of 80 to 100 people who gathered in the Judiciary Room.
But another
panelist, Susan Kniep,
president of the Federation of Connecticut
Taxpayers Association, saw the decision as not something to be made light of,
but a real and genuine threat to every individual's freedom and way of life.
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 or public justice to protect it, anarchy and
tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist,said Kniep,
quoting John Adams, the second president of the United States.
The event was
sponsored by the Hartford
chapter of the Federalist Society, a self-described group of conservatives and
libertarians who
advocate for state rights and a strict interpretation of laws and the
Constitution.
The debate came a
day after Gov. M. Jodi Rell
ordered the New London Development Corp. to rescind relocation notices it sent
to property owners in the Fort
Trumbull area. It is
those property owners who the U.S.
Supreme Court has said can be evicted, with just compensation, to make way for
redevelopment plans in the area. Rell,
however, has ordered a statewide moratorium on such property takings until the
legislature can decide whether more safeguards are needed in the use of eminent
domain.
Those in
attendance Friday included residents of the Fort Trumbull
properties facing eviction, lawmakers and property owners from other
communities who are facing the threat of eminent domain.
We have a hero in
this state and we woke up this morning, read the paper, and realized who that
is: Gov. Rell,Kniep said. Gov. Rell came to the forefront to protect the rights of
the people who live in New London.
Horton, however,
said he saw nothing to protect. He pointed to Justice John Paul Stevens opinion in support of the eminent domain ruling.
Stevens noted that New London
had referred to a development plan in determining that property had to be
seized, and demonstrated it was a distressed community in dire need of
development to expand its tax base. A plan without those safeguards, which
simply sought to seize the property of one person and pass it to another
without serving the greater good, would not pass judicial muster, Horton said.
Both Horton and
attorney Dana Berliner of the Institute for Justice, which represented the Fort Trumbull
property owners in the case, agreed on one thing: the NLDC redevelopment plan
will become the blueprint for cities seeking to use eminent domain for
redevelopment. They disagreed on whether that is a good thing.
Berliner said it
will be no problem for planners and bureaucrats to come up with plans to
justify the taking of people's homes. But Horton said the redevelopment plans
have to be genuine, as was, he said, the NLDC plan.
A fourth panelist,
attorney John Rose Jr., corporation counsel for the City of Hartford, said
cities such as New London and Hartford, with limited space for redevelopment,
must have the power of eminent domain to put together enough land to make
revitalization projects feasible.
But Berliner
argued that municipalities are far too quick to turn to that resort, rather
than try to work with property owners.
I hear every day
that this is only used as a last resort. That doesn't mean anything. Last
resort means: We are going to offer you some money and, if you don't take it,
we are going to condemn, she
said.
As legislatures in
Connecticut and across the country consider changes to state laws to limit the
use of eminent domain, it may prove to be the case that the Fort Trumbull
property owners and the Institute for Justice lost the battle, but won the war,
Berliner said.
But Horton
cautioned about the doctrine of unintended consequences if lawmakers alter
eminent domain laws and limit the taking of property to public works projects.
New laws may hinder economic development, allow for only the homes of the poor
and their blighted properties to be seized, and tie the hands of local
government leaders as they seek to improve the lives of their constituents, he
warned.
Economic
development is not the poor cousin of roads and bridges,
Horton said. It is just as important.