Well-Kept Secret: New London, Conn. Mayor Has Apologized for Kelo Property Seizures
Daryl Justin Finizio, the recently elected Democratic Party Mayor of New London, Connecticut has apologized to the families and homeowners who lost their homes as a result of the city's decision to condemn properties in the Fort Trumbull area of that city. Those efforts began over a decade ago. A lawsuit by the victims which attempted to stop the city from taking their properties and destroying their homes ultimately led to the Supreme Court's Kelo vs. New London decision in 2005. The Court ruled in favor of the City based on what it believed was "a carefully considered development plan." A few remaining holdouts who tried to get the city to reverse course after the ruling, including Susette Kelo, lost their battle and settled with the city in 2006. To my knowledge, no ground has been broken on any kind of new development in the area originally occupied by the homes in the 5-1/2 years since.
Obviously, one could argue that the apology is way too late, given that the buildings have long since been leveled.
Considering that it relates to one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in the past few decades, how much opposition that decision has generated since it was handed down in 2005, and how so many other trivial apologies get so much more attention, it's more than a little surprising that there has been virtually no coverage of it outside of the immediate local area, as seen in the results of the following Google News search on ["new london" kelo apology] (input exactly as indicated between brackets):

That's it.
Here are the first seven paragraphs from Kathleen Edgecomb's longer February 1 story at the New London Day:
NLDC getting a new identity
Finizio says development agency to be overhauled, offers apology for city's use of eminent domainMayor Daryl Justin Finizio on Tuesday apologized to property owners whose homes were seized by eminent domain in a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. At the same time, Finizio announced a restructuring of the New London Development Corp.
The changes to the NLDC, which bought and took the properties to pave the way for private development in the Fort Trumbull area, include a name change and new leadership.
"I issued a formal apology to all those adversely affected by eminent domain to acknowledge, in my opinion, that mistakes were made,'' Finizio said. "I think our development strategy was flawed. We are moving forward with new strategy that will embrace a new vision."
Future development will be undertaken in partnership with neighborhoods, Finizio said.
In a redevelopment project at Fort Trumbull that began more than 12 years ago and was headed by the NLDC, seven property owners who fought the eminent domain filings saw the Supreme Court uphold the city's right to seize their homes for economic development.
Richard Beyer, a plaintiff in the nationally recognized Kelo v. New London eminent domain case, said he's not sure what good an apology does today.
"It's been so long,'' he said. "If he needs to apologize to anybody at this time, it's the families of the elders that lived there."
The reaction of Scott Bullock at the Institute for Justice, which defended Susette Kelo and other homeowners all the way to the Supreme Court, is that Mayor Finizio and the city need to pass legislation to ensure that what happened to Kelo and her neighbors can't happen again in New London:
City of New London Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio may have acknowledged that the city government wrongfully bulldozed Susette Kelo and her neighbors’ homes. But as IJ’s Scott Bullock points out, more is needed to protect against future abuses.
Below is Scott’s response to this article from The Day.
"It was good to see that Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio apologized on behalf of the city and the New London Development Corp. for abusing the power of eminent domain in the disastrous Fort Trumbull project ("NLDC Gets a New Identity," Feb. 1). But if the city wants to ensure that no other New Londoner goes through what the residents in Fort Trumbull did, then it should take the lead of other Connecticut cities, such as Fairfield and Milford, which have passed ordinances prohibiting the use of eminent domain for private development. That way, future mayors will not have to apologize yet again to homeowners and small businesses when their property is taken to give to private developers."
As to the lack of press coverage (a search on "kelo" at the Associated Press's main national site returns nothing relevant), my gut instinct is that the press is generally uninterested in apologies which make an aggressive, overbearing government look bad -- especially one which makes the portion of the Supreme Court which doesn't mind seeing the government take away people's property for unconstitutional reasons look positively foolish in hindsight.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
A day late
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 12:46am.
and many dollars short.
I'm no lawyer, have never studied law, and only have a layman's definition of what Imminent Domain means....and I still consider this one of the most egregious decisions in my lifetime.
Kelo
Submitted by WestTexan on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 12:17pm.
Amen.
"a carefully considered development plan."
Submitted by ThePickle on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 12:51am.
So New London in 2005 had ""a carefully considered development plan." that has as of today has resulted in exactly ZERO development.
So were the sitting members of the SCOTUS wildly wrong in their assessment of said plan....or was the Right Honorable Mayor blowing smoke up their a$$e$?
The answers are ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:26am.
... SCOTUS was wrong, and the current mayor was only two years out of college when New London first moved to condemn the properties.
Pickle
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 12:23pm.
On a side note - the government always has "a carefully considered development plan" when they start a project and look how they turn out frequently.
Yep, and this is the SCOTUS that is going to overturn Commiecare
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 3:12am.
ROFLMAO!
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
It all comes down to one justice
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:49am.
We know, with a fair amount of certainty, that 4 justices will uphold Obamacare and 4 will declare it as being unconstitutional. It is all going to come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy and how he sees it. This is assuming that Keegan does not recuse herself from the case.
And just to be factually correct, the SCOTUS that ruled in the Kelo case was different than the SCOTUS that we have today. There are 4 different justices sitting today.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Maybe because the environazis kept this case in the courts
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 3:59am.
for so long that they lost interest in the construction! Thats the problem with all these NIMBY lawsuits-by the time they settle it, the moneys gone, the desires gone, and the propertys gone!
The Kelo Case: A Fatal Conceit
Submitted by Fenwick on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 8:01am.
This case gets my hackles and blood pressure up like no other! It is a prime example of what Hayek called the Fatal Conceit:
More than ever, our federal, state and even local governments are being run by people who think they are smart enough to reshape and mold the world around them to their grand plans of utopian bliss for the rest of us to live in and sing their praises. For all their over-educated, super-huge brains, they lack the wisdom and humility to know that they are screwing things up in irreversible ways.
reference cited
Liberal exploitation
Submitted by jhandyman on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 7:42am.
Eminent domain has been exploited, just as the constitution has for decades. We have now come to the point where Liberals don't feel the need to defend their actions as constitutional. The elite have usurped so much power that constitutionality's may have already lost. It's always harder to go back than it is to go forward, therefore, every legislation, every action, every regulation should be carefully considered with the default as taking no action, passing no tax, taking no land.
Considering the Kelo v New London decision
Submitted by gs-425 on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:19am.
was to the majority liberals with all four conservative jurists dissenting, you won't hear anything to the effect of "sorry" in the MSM. To this day, the majority of people think that because the decision went in favor of Pfizer....a big corporation and by mindless default of connecting corps to the right, that the decision was made be the conservative jurists.
Kelo v New London was a stark example for the lefts lack of respect for private property rights and how willing they are to strip them if they think it will benefit the "collective".
And after all that . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:40am.
. . . Pfizer decided not to build its facility on the seized property. The mayor's formal apology is nice, but useless. The toothpaste is out of the tube, because not only did the Kelo decision impact those homeowners at Fort Trumball, it immediately inspired other municipal governments to enact similarly abusive eminent domain actions.
Many state government have tried to leglislate counters the Supreme Courts misguided decision by instituting tough limits to eminent domain in their states, but the damage has been done.
Someone needs to interview the SCOTUS members...
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:42am.
They need to be reminded that just because an idea sounds good and has some obvious economic merrits (the "well concidered development plan") doesn't make it OK to usurp a citizen's property to give to another citizen. The basis for this concept is that Government believes that citizen B can make better use of citizen A's property (as lobbied by citizen B). So Government uses it's power to take the property of citizen A and gives it to citzen B.
This SCOTUS decision is completely anti-constitution because it did not concider the idea on constitutional grounds (as they were supposed to), only whether the local government had thouroughly and with due dilligence considered the develpment plan. The SCOTUS approached this case as if it were a State appelate court and wanted to hear the merrits of the arguments. They apparenty, in the majority decision, felt that a good and well written real estate development plan was superior to and superceded any property rights that an individual citizen had. In effect they threw out the concept of property rights completely.
Now looking back and realizing that even good development plans cannot foresee future conditions, the members might have a different take on whether constitutional rights should be subordinated to what seems like a momentary "good idea"
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
another liberal failure
Submitted by ohio granny on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 10:08am.
How many times in how many ways do we need to see how the liberal agenda fails? We are told to not judge the outcome only the intentions. They took peoples homes and bulldozed them down and now have empty fields instead of houses, businesses, or shops. Only empty fields are left at this point. Not much tax revenue in empty fields. Guess their good intentions backfired like so many of their "good intentions".
How long will the people continue to be fooled? When will we quit listening to anything liberals/democRats say? The democRat party only cares about power and they will say or do anything to gain and keep it.!!!!!!!
Crap Susette
Submitted by CO2Maker on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:32am.
"Dear Susette,
We f***** you badly and then finessed five justices on the Supreme Court to agree. My bad. Sorry. No hard feelings, okay?
Ciao
Mayor Daryl Febreeze
(masking the odor of ominous domain seizures)