|
|
|
|
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Susette KeloPfizer Leaving New London, CT; Just Don't Mention 'Kelo' While Reporting It
Some "win." In what Ed Morrissey at Hot Air calls "a fitting coda to a chapter of governmental abuse," pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer is leaving the global research and development headquarters it built in New London just eight years ago. The significance of the move should resonate nationally, because, as the Washington Examiner explains, Pfizer's original decision to locate in New London was driven by the City's promises to eliminate a nearby neighborhood -- promises which led to the Kelo litigation once residents, including Susette Kelo (pictured above), pushed back:
The New London Day elaborates, while petulantly managing to avoid any mention of what has clearly become the local four-letter word -- "Kelo" (bold is mine): AP Does a Balanced Update on the Kelo Story and Current Situation
Pigs aren't flying, but don't be surprised if you see a few of them sprouting wings. The Associated Press, which along with the rest of the establishment media has almost totally ignored the aftermath of the awful Kelo v. New London ruling over fours ago, actually carried a mostly fair and balanced piece about where things stand by writer Katie Nelson. Though I've followed the story reasonably closely since the fall of 2005, I learned a few things I didn't know about the City of New London's original lofty promises. I do have a couple of quibbles, the biggest one being the current headline ("Conn. land vacant 4 years after court OK'd seizure"). It seems to me that the word "Kelo," as in Susette Kelo (pictured at top right), belongs in it. My other problem is that it's a weekend story and will thus be lightly read. But let me highlight the better paragraphs in Nelson's report: Four Years After Kelo Ruling, Now-Barren Area Still Needs 'Springboard'
Four years ago, on June 23, 2005, a 6-3 Supreme Court majority ruled in Kelo v. New London that the New London, Connecticut government could condemn houses in that city's Fort Trumbull area in the name of redevelopment. A bit over a year later, the city settled with the area's final two holdouts, the Cristofaro family and Susette Kelo. Since then the city has without success tried to engage a developer to build a hotel on part of the now-leveled area, and to put apartments or condos on the rest. Yes, you read that right; they're building residences where residences used to be. The idea behind the hotel was that it would serve as lodging for visitors to the anticipated U.S. Coast Guard Museum. Now, as reported in last Friday's New London Day, it seems that even the Museum's ultimate presence in Fort Trumbull is in serious doubt: More Than 3-1/2 Years After Kelo, New London Paper Contrives Reason for Hope in Non-Developed Ft. Trumbull
Susette Kelo and other Fort Trumbull residents pushed back and sued to try to stop the city's plans. Ultimately, the Supreme Court rendered its 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London in June 2005, erroneously (as the Founders would almost certainly have seen it) siding with the city. In July 2006, after intervention by Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell prevented the City from carrying out its declared intent to forcibly remove final holdouts Kelo and the Cristofaros if necessary, the city and the holdouts settled. More than 2-1/2 years after the settlement, 3-1/2 years after the Supremes' decision, and 11 years after the city's initial plans, oh boy -- a new tenant has finally moved into the Fort Trumbull Neighborhood. It's a government tenant (link at New London Day will be available for about a week), and the move is into an existing building: |
|
|
[ Home | Blogs |
Forum |
About |
Contact
]
| |
Recent Comments
41 sec ago
3 min 2 sec ago
4 min 7 sec ago
7 min ago
9 min 38 sec ago
10 min 29 sec ago
15 min 4 sec ago
15 min 52 sec ago
16 min 47 sec ago
16 min 52 sec ago