From: Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
860-524-6501
July 12, 2005
EMINENT
DOMAIN
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
TO PROTECT YOUR
PROPERTY
RIGHTS?
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
Copyright © 2005 Republican-American
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