| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| New London to charge rent on homes it seized |
| 2005-08-16 |
| The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation. In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as it was in 2000 . Dery owns four buildings on the project site, including his home and the birthplace and lifelong home of his 87-year-old mother, Wilhelmina. Dery plans to make every remaining effort to keep his land, but with few legal options remaining, he's planning for the worst. And for good reason. It's reasonable to think that people who purchased property years ago (in some cases, decades ago) would be in a position to cash in, especially since they're being forced from their homes. But that's not the case. The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst. "I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low." In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents. In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any money made from tenants -- some residents' only form of income -- would also have to be paid to the city. NLDC's lawyers wrote, "We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case." They warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be. A lawyer for the residents, Scott Bullock, responded to the letter on July 8, 2004, asserting that the NLDC had agreed to forgo rents as part of a pretrial agreement in which the residents in turn agreed to a hastened trial schedule. Bullock called the NLDC's effort at obtaining back rent "a new low." An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the takeover, a debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case namesake Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house with her husband, learned she would owe in the ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd leave here broke," says Kelo. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge." Is there any reason why the city council shouldn't be tarred and feathered? Or why the board of the NDLC shouldn't be shot while their families look on? |
| Posted by:Jackal |
| #12 Rope, tree - some assembly required. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-08-16 20:12 |
| #11 When crying, stung by bee. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-16 18:56 |
| #10 Injury, meet Insult... |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-08-16 17:47 |
| #9 .com, sounds like a very good idea. I think "eminent domain" is something that could really prove to undermine everything what America is about. And what New London is doing (if they get away with it) would warrant a "New London Tea Party". If you can't find tea, try it with city officials. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-08-16 16:39 |
| #8 This is a classic case of human rights violations. Where are the self proclaimed protectors of human rights? Where is the court that is supposed to protect those rights? Crickets? Ya I thought so. It's things like this that make me certain we need a new revolution to reclaim our constitution and enforce the Bill of Rights for real people not "real persons" |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-08-16 15:37 |
| #7 I'd be curious to hear what TGA thinks about this... I have no doubts that if these people banded together, put up a website, gave interviews (though only Fox would offer), and pleaded for legal assistance - as well as "other" assistance, does anyone doubt they'd get it - both types. Their plight is simply offensive to me. I'd donate in a heartbeat to help them. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-16 14:22 |
| #6 $6,100 a month for rent, geesh. The dudes in that city council should be shot, hung and castrated all at the same time. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-08-16 14:13 |
| #5 This is all the more reason the Second Amendment is necessary. Time to lynch some city officials and run the land developers out of town. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-08-16 14:03 |
| #4 They make robbers look good in comparison. Is this Cuba or what? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-08-16 13:47 |
| #3 Jackal beat me by 2 minutes. I think what is happening here is that the development company is now short of cash so the City is going to try to get it for them. Taking people's property (homes) offering them less than half waht it is worth, and then charging back rent so the city winds up not having to pay anything. Hanging's too good for them. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-08-16 12:27 |
| #2 It might be nice to see a number of Supreme Court judges have to pay back rent. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-16 11:59 |
| #1 I think I'd find some snail darters on my land right about now. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-08-16 11:36 |