Via Sandefur, I found this absolutely incredible display of chutzpah on the part of the city government that won in the Kelo case. Would you believe they are charging those who fought their takover rent for staying in their own homes while they fought in court to prevent the city from taking them?
Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. 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...
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...
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."
This has gone far beyond the point of absurdity and into outright barbarism.
- Log in to post comments
Let's just hope the citizens in this case don't invoke their 'right to bear arms' and cooler heads prevail. These types of judgements are always a little scary because desperate people may take desperate measures. And with the notoriety of this case 'there may not be jury in the world' that would convict them.
That's just completely disgusting. If stealing their land to build Wal-Marts wasn't enough... you're right, this borders on barbarism.
This is just pure punishment by the city government thugs for bringing suit to begin with.
It doesn't "border on" barbarism, it IS barbarism. Pure, simple, ugly barbarism.
Seems to me they could not have been living on city land because the city had not yet compensated them for the seizure.
It isn't barbarism; it's despotism. Barbarians don't wear suits and carry briefcases.
In any case, I'd be on the jury that would not convict them.
It isn't barbarism, it's stupid.
The town did not have ownership of the properties until the property owners exhausted their legal remedies.
Words fail me. Why don't they just take the next logical step and take the clothes they are wearing?
That's what I thought, too. So basically what they're doing is just meant to screw with the property owners as "punishment" for not rolling over and being good little serfs.
That almost brings brigs a tear to my eye.
So much for the land of the free.
Eminent domain abuse (and this is abusive beyond belief) is the perfect issue to bring Democrats and Libertarians together. Randians whining about oppressive government holding back the gifted and glorious elite are a snooze. This is real oppression, in the service of the money-grubbing elite.
I used to teach in a college right next door to New London. At the time I thought it was a nice place. I'm glad I didn't move there!
In any case, what is the sentiment of the local population on the Kelo case? I mean, not only is this a disgusting move by the city government, but it seems politically stupid if the people of New London find it as odious as we do.
Donny wrote,
"Eminent domain abuse (and this is abusive beyond belief) is the perfect issue to bring Democrats and Libertarians together." I don't know if this is necessarily true. I believe Connecticut is a predominantly Democrat state so there's a good chance Democrats had a large hand in this case. Spinning this to absolve Democrats of this could be a monumental task. That's not even addressing the parts of the Libertarian National platform that Democrats would never agree with. See http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
CT is an odd state. It has a Republican governor and a Republican congressman, and a conservative Democrat senator. If memory serves, Kelo came out of New London, which is--or was--lrgely military. I would hardly consider any of that what one would consider liberal Democrat.