Kelo Update: Guess What New Developer Wants Before Going Forward?
In its infamous June 2005 Kelo vs. New London ruling, a Supreme Court majority allowed the city of New London to seize the properties of holdout homeowners in that city's Fort Trumbull area for the "public purpose" of economic development, not a "public use" as the Constitution's Fifth Amendment requires.
It has been eleven years since the litigation began, six years since the court's ruling, and almost five years since the final settlement between the City and final holdouts the Cristofaro family and Susette Kelo, whose former home now stands elsewhere as a de facto monument to the perils of overbearing government. The land involved is still vacant, and nothing of substance has since happened. In late 2009, Pfizer, the economic linchpin which supposedly drove the city's need to remake the area, announced that it was pulling out of New London.
After several false starts, the city is working with a new developer. As of February of last year, this developer wanted to put rental townhouses in an area where century-old, largely owner-occupied homes once stood.
Early Friday, the New London Day's Kathleen Edgecomb reported a new twist. Wait until you see what the developer wants before going forward.
Yep, tax abatements:
Would-be Fort Trumbull developers seek tax break
A developer hoping to build housing at Fort Trumbull said Thursday they will seek tax abatements from the city to move the project forward.
Robert and Irwin Stillman, the father and son owners of Westport-based River Bank Construction, said the abatements were necessary to make the project financially feasible.
"If abatements are not approved, we would have to reconsider,'' Robert Stillman said during a meeting Thursday afternoon with The Day's editorial board.
The city has granted tax abatements to two other residential developments over the past few years, including Harbour Towers and Shaw's Landing, both on Bank Street.
Michael Joplin, president of the New London Development Corp., said the city should offer the abatements because it will help increase homeownership and eventually bring in more taxes.
The NLDC does not look at short-term economic rewards, he said. Rather, it seeks to increase the tax base and create economic development that will be (sic) span the next 30 to 40 years.
The Stillmans said they expect the two-bedroom units, which make up 70 percent of the construction, to sell between $300,000 and $375,000. They will first be available as rental units and then sold as condominiums when the real-estate market improves.
"Our intent is to sell the units,'' Irwin Stillman said. "We do not own a single rental unit. Our history is, we are not renters.''
The 90-acre Fort Trumbull development area has been an ongoing issue in the city for more than 10 years. The NLDC presented a plan in 2000 that the city approved that in essence leveled nearly all the buildings in Fort Trumbull to make way for new construction. Several property owners fought the eminent domain taking of their land all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where eventually justices ruled in favor of the city.
Edgecomb continued what is now a disgraceful five-year tradition at The Day of not mentioning "Kelo" any time it writes a story concerning the Fort Trumbull area.
The establishment press is in the sixth year of its own tradition: Not following up on what has really happened in the area involved in the most important and disastrous property-rights ruling in several decades. Perhaps they'd prefer that the country not be aware of the post-Kelo reality, because it might cause average people who aren't necessarily politically active to question the "wisdom" of the elites who think they can do a better job with the nation's land and other resources than private property owners.
In its opinion (scroll to Section IV), the Justices opined in 2005 that "The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including–but by no means limited to–new jobs and increased tax revenue." In 2011, a city which could have collected five more years of property taxes from established homeowners by now is instead contemplating and appears likely to approve tax breaks to a developer of rental units it hopes to convert to condos when the real estate market gets better.
This outcome makes a complete mockery of the Supreme Court majority's belief that a "carefully formulated ... economic development plan" was ever in place. The press's five-year lack of coverage makes a mockery of its claim to be interested in meaningful story follow-up.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Unbelievable.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:15pm.
You really can't make this stuff up.
MB, I knew you or someone else would say that ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:18pm.
... so I avoided doing so. :-->
Aw, Tom....are we that
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:23pm.
Aw, Tom....are we that predictable?
Actually, I'm the one who leans heavily on that line ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:26pm.
... and I had to pinch myself to resist.
The howler of the piece....
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:28pm.
Michael Joplin, president of the New London Development Corp., said the city should offer the abatements because it will help increase homeownership and eventually bring in more taxes. (emphasis mine)
Parody is now officially dead.
Indeed
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:48pm.
A reasonably close second is the next item if you clean away the grammar error in the original, which I did:
The NLDC does not look at short-term economic rewards, he said. Rather, it seeks to increase the tax base and create economic development that will span the next 30 to 40 years.
You really can't make ... oh, sorry.
"Parody is now officially dead."
Submitted by needle on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 8:13pm.
But Irony is very much alive.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
The problem with lawyers
Submitted by richb313 on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:17pm.
The problem with lawyers is they are always suckers for a novel argument. They will throw what ever principles they have left away because the argument presented is new and novel. This was the case with this decision. Maybe one requirement for the Supreme Court is that there should be no lawyers allowed. I think a plumber would have made a better decision.
A plumber, Rich?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 9:58am.
You could put that court decision up on "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" and the justices would have had to defer to the kids for the best ruling!
We are truly governed by morons and it's just getting "better" every day!
Sometimes I'm really happy that I'm old and won't have to actually see the fall of the USA in the near future.
Lawyers not required
Submitted by ruby2ssday on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 12:44pm.
Actually there are two courts that do not require lawyers to be judges. City justice courts (justice of the peace) usually are open to non-lawyers, AND, the Supreme Court of the United States does not require a justice to be a lawyer, but they almost always are. I think you are on to something here. Maybe all that is required is a law degree, or extensive knowledge of the law, for all judgeships. Throw the lawyers out!
That was the worst Supreme Court ruling ever.
Submitted by NeoKong on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:19pm.
Those people were screwed out of their property by a couple of jerk wad city councilors who had no respect for the people they represented. There is nobody more arrogant than some low level city hack with just enough power to interfere in people's lives. That was a crime in my opinion.
Maybe if this bitch didnt sue him
Submitted by brutony1 on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:20pm.
And stretch this lawsuit out over 12 years and bankrupt the developer something would have been built there! These friggin libs with their "NINBY" BS really crack me up-its all just about the money!
When will liberals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! -Me
Huh?
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:24pm.
Kelo sued the city. She was the lead "good guy."
Actually, she wasnt!
Submitted by brutony1 on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:29pm.
She previously agreed to a settlement, then something happened, and she was the lone holdout, and started the whole sh*tstorm that delayed and eventually cancelled the project. THATS why nothing has been built there-are you happy, Suz?
When will liberals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! -Me
Yeah, gosh, if she had just
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:38pm.
Yeah, gosh, if she had just let them throw her out of her home, and gone along with their grand plan.....
Boy, she had some nerve!!
\sarc off
She wasn't the lone holdout.
It has been eleven years since the litigation began, six years since the court's ruling, and almost five years since the final settlement between the City and final holdouts the Cristofaro family and Susette Kelo, [ ]
The land involved is still vacant, and nothing of substance has since happened. In late 2009, Pfizer, the economic linchpin which supposedly drove the city's need to remake the area, announced that it was pulling out of New London.
Pfizer didn't pull out until 3 years after the ruling.
I don't think your rendering is historically correct
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:36pm.
There were nine "holdouts" representing 15 properties in the case that went to the Supremes.
This vid surely doesn't support your contention.
Looks like you're blaming the victim to me.
If you have proof that she previously agreed to a settlement, show us a credible link.
Hey, coffee sniffer.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 10:09am.
"she was the lone holdout, and started the whole sh*tstorm" ???
She started it? What am I missing here?
That would be kind of like calling George Washington "the lone holdout, (who) started the whole sh*tstorm" called the American Revolution! Hell, most colonialists just wanted him to sit down and shut up so King George wouldn't get pissed off any more than he already was.
I guess that's why liberal networks like MSMBC have a marketing phrase like "Lean Forward" to describe their "position" toward the guvmint.
So you libs keep "leaning forward," Cupcake. I prefer the "lone holdout" approach to tyranny.
Its always about the money!
Submitted by brutony1 on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 2:44pm.
Everyone else sold, why did she hold out? In my home town of Long Branch, NJ, they were improving the city, esp the slums around the boardwalk, and have been developing previously blighted hoods.They came to one spot, and most agreed to sell, but there were some recent home buyers who smelled blood, wanted more money, then when the developers didnt give them more, they cried Eminent Domain abuse, dragged the city into it, and started their own sh*tstorms. End result, 12 years later, a smattering of occupied homes, and mostly abandoned ones in a neighborhood worse off now than then.
When will liberals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! -Me
It was his right to hold out.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 3:38pm.
We had a huge shopping mall that bought up a ton of land to build the new mall. Definitely would make it more valuable to the tax coffers.
One family liked their home and refused to sell out. The city wouldn't take the property through condemnation because they didn't consider it their right to do that. A different time, and a different place.
So the mall owners built the mall almost totally around the families property and made sure they had an easement to use the property. Not a lovely view, but hey, they got what they wanted.
When the older family members grew old and moved on, the shopping mall bought the land from the kids for less than they had offered years earlier.
It used to be a free country. I guess it was because we had a lot less government and a lot fewer lawyers.
If you live in an area such as that,,
Submitted by brutony1 on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 5:18pm.
What did you expect? Just take the money, and stop being the NIMBYs that block every damn project in this country! You could have gotten more moeny, and alot less hassle, right?
When will liberals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! -Me
Weird.
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 8:49pm.
Weird.
Private homes stolen by the
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:23pm.
Private homes stolen by the government, developers building new private homes on stolen property seeking tax breaks. I'M SHOCKED!! I they won't think its so funny once I forward this article to eric holder.
We continue to stumble toward obama's goal, an American zimbabwe.
Liberal Justices, Liberal Politicians, Liberal Media:
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 7:34pm.
Another monument to the folly of Liberalism.
Serfdom
Submitted by ajkrik on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 8:21pm.
Bottom line . . . government on all levels and in all branches could give a crap about the people.
not just the people
Submitted by russedav on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 12:26am.
they couldn't care less about reality itself, so deranged as to be manifestly suicidal!
It also shows the Congress to be cowardly, effeminate evil accomplices in not standing up to this by striking down the deranged precedents that SCOTUS is any better able to determine the constitutionality of something than anyone else by evicting its occupants through impeachment and conviction for such manifestly lawless and treasonous acts for which these black-robed fascists should be jailed at their own expense.
The Issue is Not the Issue
Submitted by rogue operator on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 8:23pm.
Whether or not the land was developed or not is not the issue. The issue is that judges all over the country can use Kelo as precedent to further destroy private property rights, once again illustrating the folly of using case law instead of The Constitution as the standard of what is right and wrong.
In principle, you are correct
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 8:39pm.
In practice, if a judge or group of judges, even those who aren't as constitutionally grounded as they should be, see the practical effects of a government seizure -- namely that the establishment of supposedly "carefully formulated development plans" governments claim to have are often not worth the paper on which they're written, they might reverse Kelo even if not for the purest of reasons.
I think what the SCOTUS
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 9:01pm.
Had in their mind as far as economic plan was and still to this day was meant for any and all developers to build and office building, maybe a Wal-Mart or a strip mall or other similar types of retail space. the ruling IMO and probably from many others especially the previsous HO's who lost there homes to this God awful ruling was never intended to rebuild what they destroyed and if that's the intention of the City Planning Commission and the Developer then I think the SCOTUS has an obligation to the Plantifs of the Kelo Case to reopen there Case and overturn there initial ruling in there favor and give them there property back plus cost to rebuild what they lost and then some and e he'll with a tax abatement and other goodies to this "Developer" who now wants to in essense rebuild or put back what was wrongfully taken and is now wrongfully beco e someone else's little pet project/goldmine.
to have a Developer come in and ask for Tax abatement until e Housing market gets better is like allowing a potential homebuilder to build to suit for someone in the future but hold off on the Tax bill until the right client come along.... WTF I hope this makes it's way back to the SCOTUS and soon !!!
all well and good, but really, that will never happen, for
Submitted by russedav on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 1:01am.
can anyone imagine that Kelo and friends will have ANYTHING to do with despicable criminal New London and SCOTUS fascists ever again, especially with the present Kennedy-bonehead swinger "court" still in place (only with besotted and kagey replacing Souter & Stevens, Alito & Roberts replacing Rhenquist and O'Con) that would likely merely reiterate Kelo, just to be their usual arrogant fascist selves (e.g. delusional Romer v Evans*), for no matter that Stevens wrote the opinion, it was and is ultimately disgusting Kennedy's determining vote as usual, proving the gross error of allowing judges/justices merely to vote on reality (i.e. constiutional matters), as if they can alter the law of gravity?)?
*JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.
. . . This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected . . . .
Con Rail
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 10:59pm.
This, in a way, reminds me of the land use argument in Raleigh/Durham NC when I lived there. The powers that were wanted to build a "commuter" rail system linking Raleigh - Durham - Cary. The route they chose didn't go near many of the places where people actually lived or worked, so many of us questioned it's usefulness. "Ah", the powers said, "We envision residential/business developments springing up around the rail stations" which would, for the foreseeable future, be in the middle of nowhere. Great - a rail line was to be built for the sole purpose of servicing imaginary future residences and businesses that it would in turn "create". Only liberal policy makers could come up with something as crazy as that. The scam - er - plan - died a proper death.
Look deeper, Chris.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 10:19am.
The real reason for the rail line from the center of Raleigh to the center of Durham was to provide public transportation to the urban outdoorsmen and muggers in both cities so that they could expand their "economic opportunities."
The chances that anyone with more than $5 in their pocket would ride this line, unless they just wanted to see what getting mugged was like, are zero to none.
The best part of the plan is that the line was going to bypass the airport altogether! Only the government could'a thunk of dat!
The original descision was
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 04/23/2011 - 11:09pm.
The original descision was bad but as a city not having any taxable base is bad also. So they have gone and danced with the devil so they might as well examine the tax abatement or reduction in taxes. I pray SOTUS will look at this next time they think about doing this again.
This is the Poster Child for Eminent Domain Abuse
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 1:05am.
We need to fight back.
Two-bedroom units to sell between $300,000 and $375,000
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 9:38am.
Who will buy these units? That's right, someone making around $200K or so. But wait -- that person is an undeserving rich SOB, just sitting around counting his money that rightfully belongs to the poor and unfortunate, so he will be taxed to the hilt by socialist obama.
Wait, wait -- this person can deduct his mortgage interest, real estate taxes, points, etc. -- so it's still a good deal after all. But just a minute -- obama is going to cancel the mortgage interest deduction, because it only benefits "the rich", not the deserving.
Bottom line -- these $300K units will sit idle. Until the deserving decide to homestead them, or be forced by the city to rent them out under strict rent controls to the deserving -- who will, in turn, trash them and turn them into urban blight.
Thanks libs, for another well-thought-out social engineering plan that benefits no one at all.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Welcome to the USSA
Submitted by David Kramer on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 12:34pm.
Where your government will decide what every inch of property in the US will be used for.
Here is there plan- http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html
There will be no private property in the future. Heil government!
"purpose" vs "use"
Submitted by ruby2ssday on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 12:51pm.
I guess this all boils down to the "living" constitution and the notion that as the English language changes and evolves we get to change the meaning of the constitution. The constitution is suppose to be the ruling document of the gov't but too many people think that it is just a museum relic and that the gov't doesn't need any rules or limits. Welcome to the dictatorship of the USA.
Justices??? Justices???
Submitted by Funbowhunter on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 2:23pm.
In its opinion (scroll to Section IV), the Justices opined in 2005 that "The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including–but by no means limited to–new jobs and increased tax revenue."
What they originally did was NOT justice. Justice would be to tell the city they can't use a travesty by turning the law on its head to take what does not belong to them in order to seek more revenue. IF those homes were abandoned and were a REAL public nuisance and the city had issued orders to raise them to the owners with those orders being ignored, then and only then should they be considered blight. What happened there has happened over and over and should be stopped.
Hurry turn it into a train station. a full scale diorama.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 2:54pm.
Sell it as the worlds largest DMV, where the workers live and commute by high speed rail to work.
How many homes and business are getting whacked at this very moment for this toy train obamation.
Will we ever hear the end of "The government should do it; they are the only ones who can"...
Ever done any re-modeling it's soo easy to toss out a kitchen sink out through the kitchen window, along with all the cabinets, do the demo in a day... Now then to finish the job it takes a week of two, or longer. Oh and the installer will need to use tools other than a HAMMER.
Anything the gov touches turns to trash, the once functioning old kitchen, now has an extension cord running a microwave, sitting on the floor ready to heat things on throw-away containers.
You Didn't Build That.
How true that is.
Submitted by pbthinker on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 7:44pm.
Yes, there was a time when Americans actually had property rights. It seems to me I remember a woman, in Atlantic City, who refused to sell her house to casino interests and they built around her so there were these tall casino buildings on either side of her house. I wonder what ever happened to that house. Anyway, that used to be the way it was then in come the courts. I wish the Supremes had left this one alone.
I'm not sure ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 04/24/2011 - 10:34pm.
... but I think the case you're referring to is the same one described here by the Club for Growth.
If it is, please note that the person trying to boot her out of her house was Donald Trump, who in the wake of the Kelo ruling told Neil Cavuto that he favored it.
Schadenfreude anyone?
Submitted by JLin on Mon, 04/25/2011 - 2:48pm.
As they say, karma is a bit*h.