From: Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
860-524-6501
March 20, 2006
WELCOME TO THE 68th EDITION OF
TAX TALK
EMINENT DOMAIN
WHAT NEXT, CONNECTICUT?
Dedicated
to all who are continuing the battle to end
Eminent
Domain abuse in Connecticut
and beyond!
and
In
support of Suzette Kelo, her New London neighbors, and all
Connecticut
property owners who are attempting to keep government from
taking
possession of their homes and businesses!
EMINENT DOMAIN continues to remain unresolved by Connecticut’s Legislature. Homeowners in New London and elsewhere throughout Connecticut continue to live in fear that
they could lose their homes to eminent domain.
Suzette Kelo, a woman of fortitude, has
courageously led the battle to protect homeowners throughout the nation from
government seizure of their properties, and yet, she and her neighbors lives in
a state of flux not knowing if the State will pass laws to allow them to remain
in their homes. Unlike Connecticut’s
Legislature, other State legislatures throughout the country are being
proactive and protecting their constituents from the rich, powerful and
politically influential from taking possession of their homes. The Federation of Connecticut
Taxpayer Organizations continues to call for a Constitutional Convention to
resolve the issue of Eminent Domain, and most importantly, voters have an opportunity in November, 2006 to remove Connecticut legislators
from office who fail to protect their property rights.
The following Tax Talk issue is a review of the old and new
on Connecticut’s
most impacting issue – EMINENT DOMAIN.
**********
The Castle Coalition, Citizens Fighting
Eminent Domain Abuse
http://www.castlecoalition.org/
**********
New London:
Still Inept, March 21, 2006, Hartford Courant, Rich Green
You'd think New
London would have learned something after it was
universally denounced last summer when the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld the city's plan to seize private property and build a
shiny new waterfront. Continued at the
following website: http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctrgreen0321.artmar21,0,4822210.column
**********
One New London emerged as a result
of the Supreme Court Decision on Eminent Domain. Two of their members were elected to the
local New London
Legislative body this past November.
Today, One New
London’s website http://www.onenewlondon.org/ included the following: Over this past weekend One New
London finalized a resolution for Fort
Trumbull that One New London councilors Frink and Cornish will propose at the April 3rd city council meeting. It is: 1. Move
the remaining houses not in parcel 4a to parcel 4a. 2. Return the titles to the
property owners. 3. Property owners pay their back taxes from June 2005. 4.
Property owners agree to no future lawsuits. Please refer to their website for
further information on this proposal.
**********
Eminent Domain, Associated Press
March 19, 2006, Associated Press
The S.C. House gave final approval Thursday to two
bills that limit the power of governments to take property, and require
compensation for property owners if zoning changes or other regulatory action
reduce land's value. One bill would put a proposed constitutional amendment on
the ballot in November, and the other specifies how the law would change.
**********
Attached is the March 17, 2006 Statement by Scott
Bullock, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice, Before the Connecticut
Legislature’s Judiciary Committee on the following Bills: Raised Bill 665, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/TOB/S/2006SB-00665-R00-SB.htm
and Raised Bill 5810 http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/TOB/H/2006HB-05810-R00-HB.htm
.
The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet tomorrow,
March 21, and to date their Agenda has not been published.
**********
New London Day Article on aforementioned
Judiciary Hearing
Proposed Tweaks to Eminent Domain Debated, State Lawmakers
Weight Reforms for Existing Law, Ted Mann,
3/18/2006
Hartford — The General Assembly
took another step toward reforming Connecticut's laws on the seizure of private
property Friday, as two committees debated new proposed restrictions on the use
of eminent domain for economic development.
The Planning and Development Committee unanimously approved a bill that
would add new procedural requirements to any seizure of private property,
increase the minimum compensation for condemned property to at least 150
percent of the market value, and require a majority vote of at least two-thirds
of any legislative body that moves to take property for economic development
purposes.
Friday was the development committee's deadline to
favorably report legislation to the floor in the current session, which is
scheduled to conclude May 3. In the Judiciary Committee, lawmakers heard testimony
on two more reform proposals, one of which would eliminate the use of economic
development as a justification for property seizures, earning glowing reviews
from lawmakers opposed to the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, which kicked off drives to rein
in government takings power in statehouses across the country. "Raised
Bill 5018 gets the job done," House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward,
R-North Branford, said in the sparsely attended committee hearing. That bill would prohibit the use of eminent
domain where its sole public purpose is economic development, as it was at Fort
Trumbull in New London, where properties were condemned by the quasi-public New
London Development Corp. to make way for a complex of housing, offices and a hotel,
conceived in consultation with Pfizer Inc. It also would create a property
rights ombudsman, appointed by the governor, who would be tasked with resolving
disputes over eminent domain takings and advising affected residents of their
rights to appeal and redress in the courts.
That bill drew praise from others who have been largely critical of the
legislature's reform proposals so far.
The proposal is "solid eminent domain reform legislation,"
said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the nonprofit Institute for Justice,
which represented the Kelo plaintiffs before the
Supreme Court. Bullock, in written
testimony submitted to the committee, said the bill would eliminate the legal
provision used to condemn houses and businesses at Fort Trumbull
while simultaneously tightening the legal definition of blight, to "help
ensure that blight elimination is not used as a backdoor way to gain property
simply for private commercial development." But as in previous appearances before the
committee, Ward was subjected to skeptical questioning from some committee
members, including its co-chairman, Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, who are
loath to entirely eliminate a development tool that urban municipal leaders
maintain is essential to rebuilding and strengthening struggling cities and
towns. The tougher bill, HB-5810, was
strongly denounced by lobbyists for the Connecticut Conference of
Municipalities, who called its restrictions on eminent domain usage excessive
and the creation of an ombudsman an ill-advised increase in state
bureaucracy. McDonald questioned
whether a state-owned affordable housing development that is privately managed
under a long-term lease would be illegal under the stiffer reform proposal, and
argued that the "bright line" between private and public uses might
be harder to draw than Ward was suggesting, as in the case of a municipality
condemning land for use by a hospital.
Ward dismissed both scenarios as unlikely. "Usually, with eminent domain, we lose
housing for poor folks. We don't create it," Ward said. "That seems to be what's happening in New London," he
added, a reference to the municipal development plan that calls for high-end
rental and condominium housing in what was once a decidedly modest middle-class
neighborhood. Both the Judiciary and
Planning and Development committees have raised bills taking the sterner reform
approach favored by the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice, while also
drafting more modest reform bills that would add procedural safeguards and boost
compensation levels, but not eliminate economic development takings
outright. While politicians in other
states and in the U.S. House of Representatives have leaped to revise eminent
domain law in the months since the Kelo decision, the
state that spawned the controversy has taken a more cautious tack, said Larry Morandi, an analyst at the National Conference of State
Legislatures. Of the 42 states that have
been or are in session this year, 41 have considered some form of eminent
domain reform legislation, Morandi said. The 42nd, Delaware, passed a bill
last year in response to the Kelo case. Legislators in six states have passed bills
since January, and in South Dakota
a reform proposal has become law. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson vetoed
another. Most states have moved to
prohibit takings where the sole purpose is economic development or increasing a
local tax base, Morandi said, but Connecticut has not been as aggressive. "I don't see those specific prohibitions
that I see in other legislation," he said. "The tone is
different." Morandi
said a similar bill was passed in Utah last year, before the Kelo decision was announced. "This is not new," Morandi said, but the Connecticut proposal is unusual in that it
specifically restricts the power of development agencies, not just
municipalities. Had it been law, he said, it would have prevented the Fort Trumbull
project from going forward. In an interview after his committee completed its
work, Rep. Lewis Wallace, D-Danbury, said he expected to work with the
Judiciary Committee leaders once all the reform proposals had reached the floor
to hammer out a compromise. It was clear
Friday, however, that compromise could be difficult to achieve, amid lasting
concern that calls to reform were little more than superficial. As Tony Fappiano
of the Connecticut Association of
Realtors echoed Ward in praising the more restrictive proposal in the Judiciary
Committee, he was challenged by Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, who demanded to
know "where in either of these bills is there a protection for private
property owners." "If you
don't like the Kelo case, you should not like these
bills," Meyer said. Moments later, he added: "I agree with one thing
you said today. That is that this is a good public relations bill."
**********
John Durrand is to be commended
for his pro active approach to the eminent domain issue as noted below. Senator
Guglielmo did indeed pursue John's proposals as was
evidenced by the letters which John had attached.
John Durrand, JohnD@leed-himmel.com
Tolland Taxpayers Association
Subject: Eminent
Domain and Other Issues
Feb 9, 2006
Susan, First I'd like to thank you and applaud you for
organizing the breakfast meeting which introduced the consortium. We have
Mike on the agenda for the Feb. 14th Tolland
Town Council meeting.
Next, as I mentioned at the breakfast meeting, I discussed the eminent domain
issue with our State Senator, Tony and introduced the concept of a poison pill
clause for ANY future legislation. This would be in the form of a 1.5 to
1.75 times fair market value payment for any
confiscated property. The idea is that I feel this law will not go away,
however, it should be only a LAST RESORT, and this clause is intended to assure
that it is used only as a LAST RESORT.
Tony embraced the idea and has written to the Senate legal staff to have
this brought up to the Republican caucus. Thank you again for all your efforts. John Durand, Tolland Taxpayers Association
**********
The following is a
Presentation to the State Legislature’s Planning & Development Committee
offered by Susan Kniep, President of FCTO, on
February 15, 2006.
EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE
STATE’S CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
The Federation of Connecticut
Taxpayer Organization, Inc. is an umbrella organization for taxpayers and
taxpayer groups throughout Connecticut. The oldest taxpayer group in Connecticut reigns from New Britain,
a member sits on our Board of Directors, and last year the Connecticut
Property Owners Association of New
Britain celebrated its 75th year. Yet, as much as taxpayers decry property
taxes, no tax
related issue has drawn as much public outcry as the issue of Eminent Domain. A man’s home is his castle. It is not the bricks and mortar but the heart
and soul of families which government is trampling on when they take possession
of private property from one and give to another. The legislation before you does not prohibit
the transfer of property from one private property owner to another based on
financial gain. It does not protect
private property owners or businesses from those who are richer and more
powerful from taking possession of what is rightfully theirs. As
eminent domain affects every man, woman and child now and in the future, this
issue should not be determined by a vote of the legislature but instead by a
vote of the public. For this reason, The
Federation of Connecticut
Taxpayer Organizations is calling upon you to place this matter before the
voter through a Constitutional Convention.
In November, 2006, the State legislature is mandated to place
before the voters of Connecticut,
the following question: “Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend
or revise the Constitution of the State?”
If the majority of Connecticut
citizens vote in the affirmative, within one year the General Assembly must
assemble a convention. Proposed amendments or revisions to our State
constitution must then be submitted to Connecticut
voters at referendum. As our State
does not afford its citizens the right to petition our state government for
reform, this is an important vehicle which Connecticut voters have to enforce
true reform in our State on matters such as Eminent Domain. As such, the Federation of Connecticut
Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. requests that our State legislature adopt an
amendment to our Constitution to protect the citizens of our state from the abusive
powers of Eminent Domain. John Adams,
our country’s second president said it best when reflecting upon the passion of
our forefathers on property rights issues when he stated "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 recent supreme
court decision on Eminent Domain 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’s big business. It enriches 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 are financed by taxpayer dollars, and which have limited
accountability to the public. And there
are conflicts among you. Senator Bill
Finch who represents Bridgeport, Monroe and Trumbull has
frequently appeared before you espousing the virtues of Eminent Domain. And, of course, he would. Eminent domain is his bread and butter so to
speak as he heads the Bridgeport Economic Development Corporation, BEDCO, as
its President. As noted by Joseph Quinn,
Chief Legal Counsel for Senate Democrats, “BEDCO is an affiliate agency of the Bridgeport Regional
Business Council and obtains land through eminent domain…..” BEDCO is not only financed by state
taxpayer dollars, but as the Attorney states, “a portion of the grant is
credited to Senator Finch’s salary.” Now
I have to ask, in this age of improving ethical standards in our State, how is
this possible? At the time the
attorney wrote this letter in 2004 to the State’s Ethics Commission, Finch was
also the Chairperson of the Banks Committee and Vice Chairperson of the Labor,
Planning and Development, and Transportation Committees according to the attorney,
whose letter was written to the State Ethics Commission, which gave its stamp
of approval to Finch. The Federation
will ask that this matter be looked at again.
If Finch is allowed to be employed by an entity which relies on state
taxpayer dollars to fund all or a portion of his salary, and all or a portion
of their business operations, something is wrong and our existing laws need to
be changed. But in the meantime, the
aforementioned is a prime example of what the public is confronted with when we
deal with the issue of Eminent Domain being determined by our State
legislature. This issue clearly should
rest with the public who should not be denied their vote as guaranteed through
a Constitutional Convention. Reflecting
upon John Adams’ words, our forefathers never intended for Americans to be
forced to relinquish their property so that others would prosper as suggested
by the Supreme Court in their recent findings on the landmark Kelo v. New London case. As such, in reflecting upon the words of
John Adams, our liberties and the sanctity of our property rights must be
secured within Connecticut’s
constitution. Our constitution should
enforce a prohibition on any government body from seizing, by eminent domain,
private property for the purpose of transferring ownership from one private
party to another for financial gain or for any other reason. We encourage all Connecticut citizens who are concerned that
they could be impacted by the recent Supreme Court decision on Eminent Domain
to join with FCTO. We ask that they
contact their State legislators to impress upon them the necessity to cement
within our Constitution the protection of their private property rights from
government seizure.
**********
Senate to consider eminent domain, By Diana M. Alba Santa Fe Bureau, Feb 13, 2006, 06:00 am SANTA
FE -- A measure limiting the power of governments to
seize land using eminent domain gained unanimous support in the House on
Saturday. The bill would prevent land
from being seized from a private owner in order to promote private or
commercial development. http://www.daily-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060213/NEWS01/602130316/1001
**********
Pennsylvania Senate Passes Eminent Domain
Reform, Written By: James Hoare,
Published In: Environment News Publication Date: February 1, 2006,
Publisher: The Heartland Institute , The
Pennsylvania Senate on December 7 passed eminent domain reform legislation
significantly curtailing the ability of state and local government to condemn
private property for non-public uses. The bill, S.B. 881, the Property Rights
Protection Act, responds to the U.S.
Supreme Court's June 2005 decision in Kelo
v. City of New London and the widespread abuse of eminent domain throughout
the state. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18436
**********
House OKs eminent
domain limits,
1/27/06, by Niki Kelly, The Journal Gazette INDIANAPOLIS
– Lawmakers hopped on the anti-eminent domain bandwagon Thursday, voting
unanimously in the House to restrict the use of condemnation for private
profit. Hoosiers have shown more concern over the use of eminent domain since a
key U.S. Supreme Court decision came down last year http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/13726338.htm
**********
40 States Re-Examining Eminent Domain By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer Sun
Feb 5, 5:49 PM ET LONG BRANCH, N.J. -
The city wants Anna DeFaria's home, and if she
doesn't sell willingly, officials are going to take it from the 80-year-old
retired pre-school teacher. Continued
at the following website: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1583033
**********
Battle over property rights goes on, despite ruling, A mediator will
decide if homes in New London, Conn., will be razed to make way for private
development. By Warren Richey |
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
USA
> Society & Culture from the January
04, 2006 edition - The moment of truth is yet to arrive in the now-famous Fort Trumbull
neighborhood in New London, Conn. Six months after the US Supreme
Court ruled that the city could seize and demolish private homes to make way
for a commercial development project, determined residents are still living in
their homes in the targeted neighborhood.
Continued at the following website:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p02s01-ussc.html
**********
BB&T won`t lend for projects under
eminent domain, January
25, 2006 09:56:22 (ET)NEW YORK, Jan 25 (Reuters) - BB&T Corp. (BBT,Trade),
a large U.S. southeast bank, on Wednesday said it will not lend to commercial developers
that plan to build projects on land taken from private citizens through eminent
domain. The policy change by the
Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based bank follows a controversial U.S. Supreme
Court decision last June. In a 5-4
ruling, the court upheld the taking by New
London, Connecticut
of 15 properties for a project to complement a research facility by Pfizer Inc.
(PFE,Trade).
The taking was intended to help revitalize a depressed local economy. "The idea that a citizen's property can
be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided,"
BB&T Chief Executive John Allison said in a statement. "In fact, it's
just plain wrong." Continued at this website … http://www.bbandt.com/about/media/newsreleasedetail.asp?date=1%2F25%2F06+9%3A48%3A52+AM
**********
Jury finds middle ground in Halper dispute, Eminent Domain News on a family homestead which had been in
the family since 1922 ….Home News Tribune Online 01/27/06, By RICK MALWITZ, STAFF WRITER, rmalwitz@thnt.com - MIDDLESEX COUNTY — A Superior Court jury
weighed arguments between Piscataway Township and the Halpers
over the value of their family farm and found the middle ground yesterday, placing
the value of the 75 acres at $17.995 million. The township argued the Cornell
Dairy Farm at Metlars
Lane and South
Washington Road was worth $13.6 million. The
family argued it was worth $22.6 million. "In short the jury split the
difference," said Mayor Brian Wahler. Continued at the following website: http://thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060127/NEWS/601270463&SearchID=73233817120436
**********
Fracas over home seizures moves to states, By Warren Richey, Staff writer of The Christian Science
Monitor Thu Dec 15, 3:00 AM ET, WASHINGTON - When the US Supreme Court ruled in
June that private homes may be seized to make room for commercial development
projects, the decision ignited a firestorm of criticism. Outraged
property-rights activists said the 5-to-4 opinion in Kelo
v. New London
would render homes and businesses nationwide vulnerable to government
land-grabs to foster economic revitalization. Some ranked it among the high
court's worst decisions, calling it this generation's Dred
Scott. Continued at the following
website …. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051215/ts_csm/adomain_1
**********
Connecticut Attorney General's (Blumenthal)Office, Press
Release, Attorney General Praises U.S. Supreme
Court Decision In New London Eminent Domain Case, June 23, 2005 "In upholding the city's eminent domain authority,
the court has established a national precedent and sent a message that local
officials should have the power to determine whether and how private property
may serve the public interest. "I
am pleased that the court has agreed with the position taken by my office and
the city of New London,
vindicating long-established eminent domain principles. The paramount principle
is that local officials -- and not the courts -- should determine whether the
taking of property serves a significant public interest. The court correctly
concluded that New London's
plan will have appreciable benefits for the community that
are critical to the city's economic future." Continued at the
following website: http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=2341&Q=303590
**********
Click on Some Interesting Research from the
State of Connecticut Office of Legislative Research
on
EMINENT DOMAIN STATUTES
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0578.htm
EMINENT
DOMAIN BILL, LCO NO. 23
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0735.htm
EMINENT
DOMAIN BILL, LCO NO. 24
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0734.htm
EMINENT
DOMAIN BILL, LCO NO. 32
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0761.htm
EMINENT
DOMAIN BILL, LCO NO. 33
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0762.htm
EMINENT
DOMAIN BILL, LCO NO. 34
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0763.htm
PROPOSED EMINENT DOMAIN
BILL (LCO 39)
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0818.htm
LCO 40, AN ACT CONCERNING
EMINENT DOMAIN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0815.htm
EMINENT DOMAIN FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0559.htm
NEW LONDON EMINENT DOMAIN CASE
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0394.htm
“PUBLIC USE” AND EMINENT
DOMAIN
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0570.htm
NEW LONDON EMINENT DOMAIN CASE DISSENT
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0401.htm
NEW LONDON EMINENT DOMAIN CASE AND PROPOSED
LEGISLATION
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0393.htm
FEDERAL EMINENT DOMAIN
LEGISLATION
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0854.htm
EMINENT DOMAI LAW IN OTHER
STATES AND NATIONS
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0321.htm
**********