Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

From Susan Kniep, President, FCTO: Today, we are no longer a nation of, for and by the people. We are instead a nation of, for and by the rich, powerful, and politically connected who have been handed a key to unlock our front door and invade the sanctity of our homes. My thoughts and prayers are with the good people of New London who believed that their country would protect them. Instead, they and all Americans have been put at risk of losing their most valued possession which money could never replace. Homes, many of which have been handed down from generation to generation, are much more than the brick and mortar which sustain them. Their true structure of strength is the heart and soul of the people who live within them.

HOME OWNERS � BUSINESS OWNERS � CHURCHES

UNITE

AGAINST GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER

OF OUR PROPERTIES�

ALL AMERICANS ARE AT RISK

ATTEND THE JULY 5� RALLY

6 PM, CITY HALL, STATE STREET, NEW LONDON

FORT (For Our Rights Today) is holding a RALLY on Tuesday, July 5 at 6PM on the steps of City Hall on State Street in New London. There is a Parking Garage on the corner behind City Hall.� Scott Bullock, the lead attorney from the Institute of Justice who argued the Kelo v New London case in front of the Supreme Court will be present. We are hoping to have a few other interesting speakers.�� Please do everything you can to be there. A strong showing is important not only for the Fort Trumbull residents but people across the nation.��

If you would like more information, please contact Susette Kelo at 860-447-0466 or Kathleen Mitchell at 860-701-0023 or email address Orkenizer44@aol.com

Remember: If not now then when, If not us then who!

Please share this information with family and friends.

*******

The following is information on other courses of action being taken in addressing the Supreme Court decision�.

This website will take you to the PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES - We the People of the United States, do hereby demand that our duly elected representatives in both houses of Congress, initiate impeachment proceedings against the following Supreme Court Justices: John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer ��

http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html

*******

On Saturday, June 25, 2005, during a meeting of The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. the following motion was put on the floor and unanimously approved.�

Motion: The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.� calls upon the Connecticut Congressional delegation to initiate an amendment to the United States Constitution that will repeal the decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v City of New London.

*******

Other interesting News Items and Websites:

FROM CHICAGO SUN-TIMES:� The federal ruling stops short of giving governments carte blanche to condemn whatever property they want, though it sets no explicit limits on what conditions must be met for seizure, said David Franklin, a constitutional law professor at DePaul University College of Law.� The only real check on government's power may be the people's voice at the ballot box, he said.� "I'm not sure this Supreme Court decision necessarily is going to produce a dramatic increase in the use of eminent domain for (economic development)," Franklin said. "I would tend to doubt it, actually. There's always a political cost to pay. It's not always easy to get people on your side on these things and you might get voted out if you take too many people's homes."

DALLAS MORNING NEWS: The second case took place in China just a few weeks ago. The government went into a farming community to remove the people so that they could build a stadium for the Olympics. The people didn't want to move; they'd been there for years. They were beaten, arrested and dragged off. I was outraged, appalled and incensed. How could a government do this to hardworking people? This decision by our Supreme Court puts the U.S. on the same level as China when it comes to the property rights of the individual. I'm outraged, appalled and incensed.�� How could they approve the taking of private property from the good people of this nation for the sake of the wealthy? (Perhaps a little under-the-table money?) The five judges, such as they are, lowered the U.S. to the same level of a communist nation. No decision has been so wrong, so anti-American.

THE SEATTLE TIME:� The right to own and reasonably use private property is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution, differentiating our country from others around the world. As John Adams, one of our nation's Founding Fathers and our second president, said: "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."� The right to own property is, in fact, one of the important rights by which we secure our freedom.� Adams, Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers helped establish this right because they understood that ownership of property was evidence of liberty. In Europe, kings could take your property � as the British did to the Colonies.

THE NEW JERSEY JOURNAL:� Potter said that government is "no longer judging property by whether it is detrimental to the public good, which is how blight was interpreted." Instead, he said, government "is judging (property) by what it is not. Single-family homes are not high-priced condominiums. This trailer park in Lodi is not a new condominium development. The (municipal) parking lot in Princeton is not a five-story parking garage.� "By that standard, the front lawn of (Princeton University's) Nassau Hall is underutilized. You could definitely put a lot of income-producing properties there."

VIRGINIA TV WAVY:� Shocked at a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows cities to raze homes so developers can build private hotels, malls and office parks on the land, Virginia lawmakers called for legislation to ban the practice Friday.

AP:� A bill restricting the ability of local governments to take private land for redevelopment projects has been sent to Governor Guinn.The Senate agreed with changes made to the bill introduced by Senator Terry Care to restrict the use of eminent domain by redevelopment agencies.� Care sought the bill as a result of Las Vegas' taking of private property for the Fremont Street Experience a decade ago.� The final version of the bill allows government to take land for open-space purposes but requires good-faith negotiations first.� In the area of redevelopment, the measure would allow the original owner to take the property back if it was not put to use for a project within 15 years.� Owners of commercial property taken for redevelopment also would have to be paid for the loss of business income, not just the value of the property.

NEWS JOURNAL FLORIDA: USA - DAYTONA BEACH -- A judge told lawyers Wednesday to watch for a U.S. Supreme Court decision that could affect their battle over the city's right to condemn property for private development.That case before the high court stems from a similar fight in New London, Conn., where opponents argue the city's plan to develop its waterfront is unconstitutional because the condemnation is for private development, not public use.� Locked in the middle of a Daytona Beach trial on that very issue, Circuit Judge John W. Watson III will decide whether the owners of three properties along the Boardwalk should be forced to sell so a California developer can complete a $120 million hotel tower, retail and restaurant project on the Atlantic Ocean

KING COUNTY JOURNAL WASHINGTON STATE:� The sky may be falling on property rights in Connecticut after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling, but safeguards exist in Washington state to protect property owners.� The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize private property under eminent domain for use in private commercial redevelopment. The case concerned a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who didn't want their homes condemned and razed to make room for a commercial office and hotel complex. Washington state courts, however, ``have been fairly consistent in rulings that would prevent the sort of unfair transfer'' that is happening in Connecticut, Maurer said.

Constitutional protection: The Washington state Constitution gives property owners greater rights than the U.S. Constitution.

Section I, Article 16 of the state Constitution reads in part, ``Private property shall not be taken for private use, except for private ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches on or across the lands of others for agricultural, domestic, or sanitary purposes.''

State Attorney General Rob McKenna of Bellevue said Thursday that when local government seeks to condemn private property, the state constitution reserves to the courts the role of determining what constitutes a public use.

The Washington Supreme Court has defined the ``public benefit'' limitation more narrowly than the definition used by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Connecticut decision, McKenna said, so a similar case here ``would likely be evaluated as a matter of state constitutional law under standards that are potentially more protective of private property rights than those used by the U.S. Supreme Court today.''

State Solicitor General Maureen Hart said Washington property owners also have an added protection in that no one can appeal the state's more restrictive provision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

``States are entitled to have constitutions that are more protective of individual rights than the U.S. Constitution,'' Hart said. Only if the state Constitution was less restrictive could its provisions be appealed.

The state Constitution doesn't even grant condemnation rights to local government. The rights are granted to the state, which delegates them to local cities through statue.

A short list for condemnation

``Chapter 8.12 of the Revised Code of Washington contains a fairly specific list of things that you can condemn for, with the additional provision -- there's sort of a catch-all `for any other public purpose,''' said Jim Haney, Redmond's city attorney.

``But the Washington Supreme Court has constructed that public purpose fairly narrowly,'' he said.

The most recent attempt to use condemnation for private purposes was in the early 1980s, said Hugh Spitzer, a public finance lawyer in Seattle and constitutional law professor at the University of Washington Law School. The Supreme Court refused to let Seattle condemn the Mayflower Hotel and Sherman Clay piano store to make way for the private development of Westlake Mall.

``Consequently, Westlake includes only properties sold voluntarily to the city,'' Spitzer said, ``and the Mayflower and Sherman Clay still exist.''

Condemning for public safety

Property can be condemned for private use only if it involves ``a real public safety hazard,'' including dilapidated and dangerous buildings and high drug and crime areas, Spitzer said.

``Governments can declare a public safety blight,'' which the city of Tukwila did a decade ago on a stretch of Highway 99.

The area is much nicer and safer today, Spitzer said.

Possibly one result of this is that local governments can be cautious in using their power to condemn.

Kirkland officials briefly considered condemning property on Lake Street for a view corridor to Lake Washington, after the Trattoria restaurant burned in 1994, said state Rep. Larry Springer, then a Kirkland City Council member.

The city wanted to buy the property, but the property owner set a much higher price than they were willing to pay, recalled city planning Director Eric Shields.

Ultimately, council members rejected the idea, Springer said. ``We determined opening Lake Street to the lake was not an essential need.''

Bellevue prefers negotiations

``We have never done nor have we ever contemplated condemnation for economic development purposes,'' said Matthew Terry, Bellevue's Planning and Community Development director.

``Even when buying rights of way for streets we try to buy it through negotiation rather than using condemnation,'' Terry said.

Even with the history of how sparingly local government has used eminent domain, Maurer said it does not mean that the state Constitution can't be amended to make it easier to condemn private property.

The legislative process to do so is rather cumbersome, however, and he is wary of how judges may react to the Supreme Court ruling.

Courts may change course

``For many years the Washington state Supreme Court read our state protections as coextensive with the federal,'' Maurer said. ``What we need to be careful of is that our courts don't go back to that, and in effect amend the Constitution by interpretation.''

``Of course it's always possible,'' said Redmond's Haney. ``I suppose some court could say `Well, OK, the U.S. Supreme Court has said this is included in public purpose and use and therefore you can do it.''

But it would be ``a significant change in the way Washington courts interpret the Washington Constitution,'' Haney said.

Other Interesting Websites:

Property can be taken for development-Supreme Court
Reuters - 26 minutes ago
By James Vicini. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person's home for a development project aimed at revitalizing a depressed local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact. ...
Court: Cities may seize homes for economic development Stamford Advocate
Government Power to Take Property Backed by Top Court (Update1) Bloomberg
San Francisco Chronicle - Minneapolis Star Tribune (subscription) - WFSB - New Albany Tribune - all 72 related �!