Conn. Land Vacant 4 Years after Seizure

Supreme Court Ruled Eminent Domain OK for Private Development, but no Development has Gone Forward

(AP)  Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation's most notorious eminent domain project.

There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne's lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot's towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.

But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing.

Proponents of the ambitious plan blame the sour economy. Opponents call it a "poetic justice."

"They are getting what they deserve. They are going to get nothing," said Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the landmark property rights case. "I don't think this is what the United States Supreme Court justices had in mind when they made this decision."

Kelo's iconic pink home sat for more than a century on that currently empty lot, just steps away from Connecticut's quaint but economically distressed Long Island Sound waterfront. Shortly after she moved in, in 1997, her house became ground zero in the nation's best-known land rights catfight.

New London officials decided they needed Kelo's land and the surrounding 90 acres for a multimillion-dollar private development that included residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park that would compliment a new $350 million Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility.

Kelo and six other homeowners fought for years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, justices voted 5-4 against them, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development.

The decision was sharply criticized and created grassroots backlash. Forty states quickly passed new, protective rules and regulations, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some protesters even tried to turn the tables on now-retired Justice David Souter, trying unsuccessfully in 2006 to take his New Hampshire home by eminent domain to build an inn.

In New London the city's prized economic development plan has fallen apart as the economy crumbled.

The Corcoran Jennison Cos., a Boston-based developer, had originally locked in exclusive rights to develop nearly the entire northern half of the Fort Trumbull peninsula.

But those rights expired in June 2008, despite multiple extensions, because the firm was unable to secure financing, according to President Marty Jones.

In July, backers halted fundraising for the project's crown jewel, a proposed $60 million, 60,000-square-foot Coast Guard museum.

The poor economy meant that donations weren't "keeping pace with expenses," said Coast Guard Foundation president Anne Brengle.

The group hopes to resume fundraising in the future, she said.

Overall, proponents say about two-thirds of the 90-acre site is developed, in part because of a 16-acre, $25 million state park. The other third of the land remains without the promised residential housing, office buildings, shops and hotel/conference center facility.

"If there had been no litigation, which took years to work its way through (the court system), then a substantial portion of this project would be constructed by now," said John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp. "But we are victims of the economic cycle, and there is nothing we can do about that."

A new engineering tenant is moving into one of the office buildings at 1 Chelsea St., and a bio tech firm with as many as five employees is getting ready to move into an existing building on Howard Street, Brooks said.

Kelo, paid $442,000 by the state for her old property, now lives across the Thames River in Groton, in a white, two-bedroom 1950s bungalow. Her beloved pink house was sold for a dollar and moved less than two miles away, where a local preservationist has refurbished it.

Kelo can see her old neighborhood from her new home, but she finds the view too painful to bear.

"Everything is different, but everything is like still the same," said Kelo, who works two jobs and has largely maintained a low profile since moving away. "You still have life to deal with every day of the week. I just don't have eminent domain to deal with every day of the week, even after I ate, slept and breathed it for 10 years."

Although her side lost, Kelo said she sees the wider ramifications of her property rights battle.

"In the end it was seven of us who fought like wild animals to save what we had," she said. "I think that though we ultimately didn't win for ourselves, it has brought attention to what they did to us, and if it can make it better for some other people so they don't lose their homes to a Dunkin' Donuts or a Wal-Mart, I think we did some good."

Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, argued Kelo's case before the Supreme Court. He calls "massive changes that have happened in the law and in the public consciousness" the "real legacy" of Kelo and the other plaintiffs.

The empty land means the city won a "hollow victory," he said.

"What cities should take from this is to run fleeing from what New London did and do economic development that is market-driven and incorporate properties of folks who are truly committed to their neighborhood and simply want to be a part of what happens," he said.

[mjlewis6]

Unfortunately, the City of Arlington, Texas has bitten off more than it can chew in one of those endeavors that ultimately GAVE a major football team a statium with little in return.

I am sure the Arlington Wranglers will be a contender for years to come, although the team just moved down the road from Irving where the city refused to build a new statium to lease to the franchise. A deal with the City of Dallas fell through because the site where this franchise came from...was part of a STATE PARK and hence, no ownership was possible. But Arlington just gave it up with sugar coating. Glad no other cities are so gullible for this land grab.

At least SMU finangled and worked the HOA rules to be able to take over a property that is anticipated to be the BUSH LIBRARY....perhaps some use can be had for it as a great FICTION COLLECTION.

[kansas1946]

Proponents of the ambitious plan blame the sour economy. Opponents call it a "poetic justice."

******************************
And I would call it poetic justice. I hope the city chokes on this property. I think this was one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. I hope that a future court reverses this decision, so I am hoping another eminent domain case comes before them so they have the opportunity to rectify this blantant attack on one of our most sacred priviledges, and that is ownership of property. I hope for fifty years this propertycosts the city of New London money and problems. Maybe some group that supports the constituion will buy it and make it a park and a monument to the idiot members of the Supreme Court that voted for it.

[MekhongKurt]

Sorry -- I screwed up my own words. Let me re-state, because what I wrote is not what I meant.

1. The would-be buyer has to pay for e appraisals conducted by 3 companies, companies with no connections *at All.*
2. The would-be buyer, the owner, and the involved government agency each choose an appraiser.
3. The appraisals get made.
4. The would-be buyer pays the 3 appraisers.
5. The appraisals are added together and divided by 3.
6. The resulting average is multiplied, say by 1.5 or 2.0 (a number to be established in law).
7. The wannabe buyer can either fork over the mullah or take a hike.

Apologies for my mess-up.

[MekhongKurt]

Void_Master -- I agree with the sentiment, but there's a potential problem: the seller might want an unreasonable amount (unreasonable by anyone's standards, I mean). How about something like this: require the wannabe buyer pay for appraisals by three firms -- one chosen by the potential buyer, one paid for by the owner, and the third paid for by the government with jurisdiction. That way, the wannabe pays, not the owner or the government (i.e., taxpayers). Average the three. Then multiply that times 1.5 (say) -- and then the buyer can either cough up that amount, or fold up tent.

[MekhongKurt]

Void_Master -- I agree with the sentiment, but there's a potential problem: the seller might want an unreasonable amount (unreasonable by anyone's standards, I mean). How about something like this: require the wannabe buyer pay for appraisals by three firms -- one chosen by the potential buyer, one paid for by the owner, and the third paid for by the government with jurisdiction. That way, the wannabe pays, not the owner or the government (i.e., taxpayers). Average the three. Then multiply that times 1.5 (say) -- and then the buyer can either cough up that amount, or fold up tent.

[MekhongKurt]

Void_Master -- I agree with the sentiment, but there's a potential problem: the seller might want an unreasonable amount (unreasonable by anyone's standards, I mean). How about something like this: require the wannabe buyer pay for appraisals by three firms -- one chosen by the potential buyer, one paid for by the owner, and the third paid for by the government with jurisdiction. That way, the wannabe pays, not the owner or the government (i.e., taxpayers). Average the three. Then multiply that times 1.5 (say) -- and then the buyer can either cough up that amount, or fold up tent.

[Void_Master]

If property is going to be taken via eminent domain, the takers should be required to pay what the owner wants for it, not what they the buyers wish to pay.

[wcrosby]

Cue the sound of Ted Knight Laughing... Another example of the sterling adherance to property rights by the self-appointed experts.

[naturaltwo]

The people that did this, including the members of the Supreme Court are not Americans. They deserve the worst America can heap upon them. I hope everyone responsible for this develops cancer and dies an extremely painful death.

Their pictures should be posted on the news every night so people shun them and hopefully they move out of the country to get their cancer treatments.

SCUM - that is what they are. They aren't Christians. They are filth.

[inketolstoy]

Thank you Susette Kelo and neighbors. Your fight was one of many to slow the progression of government rights over individual rights. We all need to do our share.

[1notrub11]

"If there had been no litigation, which took years to work its way through (the court system), then a substantial portion of this project would be constructed by now," said John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp. "But we are victims of the economic cycle, and there is nothing we can do about that."

A bunch of garbage explanation.
In my view, if you support eminent domain questions and are a principle driving party in removing someone's property from their possession (remunerated or not; adequately is always open to discussion) - then you should be required to have the majority of the necessary financing to complete your plans BEFORE you take the space.
Seems to me it is a bit like loaning people money to buy a house, who do not have adequate means to repay the loan - eh?

[stn_sage]

THIS is a near PERFECT EXAMPLE of IRRESPONSIBILITY on different levels!

First, the New London Development Corp. who FAILED to have it's finances lined up in order to implement and complete the development project!

Second, local and state government who FAILED and allowed this action to proceed 'taking the word' of this business over ENFORCING the private ownership rights of the individual landowners who land was confiscated!

Third, the U.S. Supreme Court FAILED to enforce a basic tenet of state and federal law---that is, the right of private ownership of property!
THIS, in my opinion, is the MOST REPREHENSIBLE FAILURE of all!

For what good is having a Supreme Court, when the judges rule so poorly in matters?! It does NO GOOD AT ALL!

I suggest the Supreme Court needs to take up a similar case, reverse it's prior ruling, and get on the 'correct' side of the issue!

Otherwise, they look like a bunch of hapless bunglers!