You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Connecticut City Votes to Evict Homeowners Amid Key Eminent Domain Dispute
2006-06-06
NEW LONDON, Conn. — City officials voted to evict two homeowners at the center of an eminent domain battle who refuse to leave their riverfront homes, even after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling that the city can seize the property for a private development project. The City Council voted 5-2 in favor of eviction Monday. An attorney for the residents said they are considering continuing to fight.

"You are a disgrace to the city, the state and the nation," one of the residents, Michael Cristofaro, told council members who voted to evict.

The city has been trying for a decade to redevelop the once-vibrant neighborhood at the point where the Thames River joins the sea. Seven homeowners challenged the city's plans to seize the property and build a hotel, convention center and upscale condominiums, saying eminent domain can't be used to make way for private development.
Posted by:mcsegeek1

#11   Iff true, these local Govts are going way beyond the intended scope - any and all development(s) are supposed to be subject to competitive bidding, plus the City-Public Authority still has to pay Fair market value. The Authority, if it wilfully chooses to bypass competitive bidding, can be interpreted as acting as an DE FACTO PRIVATE INTERMEDIARY = BROKER = REALTY AGENT between Buyer(s) and Seller(s), whereupon Seller(s), as wid any ordinary Seller in due course, has the unilateral right to include FUTURE-POTENTIAL MARKET VALUE in the negotiation base price. i.e. the Dev Plans of the PRIVATE Buyer(s) are well-known, "discovered" andor "discoverable". NO PRIVATE PROPERTY CAN BE CONDMENED FOR ANY REASON UNLESS THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR CONDEMNING AUTHORITY FIRST PROVIDES FAIR COMPENSATION. IFF PUBLIC DOMAIN CONTROLS, AND ALSO HOLDS TITLE, FAIR COMPENSATION IS TYPICALLY THE LEAST COSTS, DUE TO GOVT. USE OF PUBLIC TAXPAYER DOLLARS;IFFF PRIVATE DOMAIN CONTROLS, AND ALSO HOLDS TITLE, FAIR COMPENSATION IS THE "HIGHEST/BEST PRICE". In any case, no private owner can be evicted unless they get one or the other. Don't let unscupulous attorneys use legal mumbo-jumbo to trick youse = many 00's of Attorneys or Doctors lose their license every year in America due to unprofessional conduct. Politicians can and do go to jail.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-06-06 22:02  

#10  Welcome to our world, folks.

Maybe in a couple hundred years you can bribe enough of them to have your own Foxwoods too.
Posted by: The Mashantucket Pequots   2006-06-06 21:16  

#9  City councilman Robert "Joe Stalin" Pero, who supported the effort to remove the families, noted that the issue has been through state agencies and three courts. "This was a plan that was well thought out," he said. "The development of this peninsula needs to move forward."

Five ropes and torches - a march to outside the city council chambers.
Posted by: BigEd   2006-06-06 16:57  

#8  Its time for a million landowner march.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2006-06-06 16:35  

#7  Who cares who appointed them. The point is this is a free society. We should have the right to own our property, and not have it stolen from us, and we should have judges who understand the nuances of theft. If those supremes don't understand what they are there to do, then they should DROP DEAD. That goes for the corrupt (I don't think for a second that money didn't change hands under the table) members of the New London city councel. And, while I'm at it, with a good kick in the balls, Bush could stop this in it's tracks.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-06-06 16:16  

#6  What #1 said. This is a federalist republic not a serfdom.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-06-06 15:39  

#5  Three of the five Justices voting in the majority were GOP appointees, including J.P. Stevens who wrote the opinion. Sorry, you can't blame everything you don't like on Liberal Democrats - the GOP owns this one.

And until either of the new Justices develops a record of voting against the power of the government and for individuals, I wouldn't be so sure Kelo would be decided differently by the current court.
Posted by: Ebbavith Slinemble3978   2006-06-06 14:20  

#4  The four dissenting Supreme Court Justices in Kelo vs. New London:

O'Connor = Reagan appointee
Scalia = Reagan appointee
Thomas = Bush Sr. appointee
Rehnquist = Nixon appointee

Actions have consequences folks. 5 Justices decided to trash the Constitution and private property rights. Notwithstanding the misguided appointments by Bush Sr. of so-called 'moderate' Justices Kennedy and Souter (a move to appease Democrats - which never works), the majority opinion was a Liberal Democrat opinion. As long as Americans keeping voting Liberal moonbats into high office, their fellow moonbats will be appointed to the court. I'd sure like to see this case revisited by SCOTUS in it's present makeup. The decision would have been far different.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-06-06 13:20  

#3  I am glad I don't live there, cause they would have to bring a truck load of police and body bags. This is idiotic to the extreme
Posted by: djohn66   2006-06-06 13:19  

#2  This I don't understand AT ALL!!! I beleive I'd SHOOTIN' SOMEBODY!!!Nothin' but a bunch of COMMY CO(#SUCKERS!!!!
Posted by: ARMYGUY   2006-06-06 12:34  

#1  Need the names of those who vote for eviction posted far and wide in this country. RUIN them!
Posted by: 3dc   2006-06-06 12:32  

00:00