Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Taken In Vain: New London's Folly
Hartford Courant ^ | 11/15/09 | Jeff Benedict

Posted on 11/26/2009 9:01:22 AM PST by steve-b

With Pfizer Leaving, City Has Nothing But Weedy Acres To Show For Grandiose Development Scheme That Uprooted Homeowners And Razed A Neighborhood

I'm often asked if I'd consider writing a novel. My answer is always no, truth is better than fiction ... and often harder to swallow.

Consider the bitter pill that Pfizer Inc. slipped New London this week. Barely a decade after constructing a $300 million research and development headquarters in the city, the pharmaceutical giant announced it was shutting down the facility. Just like that, New London will lose 1,400 jobs and become home to a gigantic, vacant office park that sprawls over a 24-acre campus.

Never mind that an entire residential neighborhood was bulldozed by New London to change the look of a 90-acre landscape around the Pfizer campus. And never mind that along the way the city used eminent domain to drive out homeowners and then fought a costly eight-year legal battle against holdouts Susette Kelo and her neighbors that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Fifth Amendment has always allowed government to take private property for public use. But in its most universally despised decision in decades, the court upheld the takings in New London by equating public benefits -- the promise of increased tax revenues and new jobs --— with public use.

In other words, the potential of a massive redevelopment scheme anchored by the arrival of Pfizer's facility justified evicting homeowners who stood in the way of progress. There's just one stubborn fact: It's been four years since the infamous Kelo ruling and the city hasn't gotten a thing built on the 90 acres it now controls....

(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: eminentdomain; kelo; newlondon; pfizer

1 posted on 11/26/2009 9:01:22 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steve-b

I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank the Supreme Court for facilitating this outrageous theft of private property...


2 posted on 11/26/2009 9:15:43 AM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Those of us who vehemently disagreed with the leap of illogic used by SCOTUS in Kelo are vindicated by this unfortunate outcome. It does no one any good at all. Not the displaced residents, and not the supposed ‘public’ that was to benefit by the increased tax revenue.
The Court equating public benefit with public good is the crux of the decision, and will be a stain on the history of the Court forever.


3 posted on 11/26/2009 9:19:32 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

How about personally thanking Bill Clinton and John Sununu?


4 posted on 11/26/2009 9:23:37 AM PST by gussiefinknottle (woof!woof!woof!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gussiefinknottle
How about personally thanking Bill Clinton and John Sununu?

Clinton is a given...it would be expected of him..

but the Bush and Sununu involvment is a travesty...and my sarcastic ‘thanks’ goes out to them as well.

5 posted on 11/26/2009 9:31:18 AM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

You know I read Judge Napoliano’s book and despite his opposition, that chapter convinced me that the Kelo decision was correct. And in fact if you do not support the Kelo decision you favor more statism.


6 posted on 11/26/2009 9:42:32 AM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank the Supreme Court for facilitating this outrageous theft of private property”

Also for setting a precedent.


7 posted on 11/26/2009 10:30:33 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JLS

Lawyers bite the big one.......

they are the first to go after a revolution and rightly so.


8 posted on 11/26/2009 11:40:03 AM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

You may not like lawyers, but alas they even the playing field for people who can not represent themselves well. The point of the Kelo case is that if you think the court decided wrong, you may not know it but you are favoring more government.


9 posted on 11/26/2009 1:05:26 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JLS
The point of the Kelo case is that if you think the court decided wrong, you may not know it but you are favoring more government.

Pu leeze.... What a ridiculous statement.

Leave it to that idiot Napolitano to support the Kelo decision.

10 posted on 11/26/2009 1:11:01 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JLS

I don’t favor the Kilo decision. I favor the Constitution of the United States of America.


11 posted on 11/26/2009 1:13:39 PM PST by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Kilo.


12 posted on 11/26/2009 1:14:51 PM PST by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JLS
"And in fact if you do not support the Kelo decision you favor more statism."

Haven't read the book, but I find it hard to believe opposing the Kelo decsion is favoring more or bigger government. I like to hear the agrument that it is.

13 posted on 11/26/2009 1:25:57 PM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

your probably confusing secy of Homeland Security Napolitano with Judge Napolitano from Fox News...


14 posted on 11/26/2009 1:35:40 PM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
your probably confusing secy of Homeland Security Napolitano with Judge Napolitano from Fox News...

Not at all my friend. Judge Napolitano is, IMO, a washed up local Judge with an extremely weak knowledge of the Constitution. That's especially so if he's defending Kelo.

L

15 posted on 11/26/2009 1:37:59 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

I think he played eddie munster...LOL


16 posted on 11/26/2009 1:55:55 PM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JLS
And in fact if you do not support the Kelo decision you favor more statism.

Let this statement stand as a stark warning to stay away from the brown acid....

17 posted on 11/26/2009 2:44:01 PM PST by steve-b (Intelligent Design -- "A Wizard Did It")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
I find it hard to believe opposing the Kelo decsion is favoring more or bigger government. I like to hear the agrument that it is.

Watching someone in the process of kinking logic into a pretzel is always entertainin -- sort of a high-brow version of watching a couple of naked chicks entangling in a Jell-O pit....

18 posted on 11/26/2009 2:50:56 PM PST by steve-b (Intelligent Design -- "A Wizard Did It")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jpsb; steve-b
but I find it hard to believe opposing the Kelo decsion is favoring more or bigger government. I like to hear the agrument that it is.

If Kelo wins and according to the US Constitution governments can only take for governments and not for private companies, then the takings power can not be used to get property or easements for private electric companies, railroads, gas companies, telephone companies etc.

The companies would all have to be GOVERNMENT agencies not the private companies they often are now. Because if you can not take for telephone lines, gas pipelines, railroad tracks etc then such business could not do business.

So the US Supreme Court decision in Kelo is correct. The US Constitution is not a document designed to make private industry government agencies. Thus if the majority decides to use the takings power to take property rights to allow for power lines etc, they are within their rights, but the US Constitution requires fair compensation.

The US Supreme Court are not there to save you from you electing over reaching idiots to govern you. It is up to the public to elect good local officials. [I will also note it is more the Dim way to US Courts to overturn the decision of the majority.]

Finally, this is my conclusion based on reading the prior case law in Napalitano's book. He did not come to this view, he thinks Kelo is wrong. But like many conservatives he did not think it through.
19 posted on 11/26/2009 6:46:33 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JLS

Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view.


20 posted on 11/27/2009 5:43:33 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JLS

You’re the only one who didnct think it through. Private companies must BUY what they want or DO WITHOUT. Mixing the prerogatives of private companies is... seven letters, staerts with “f”, invented by a fat bald Italian buffoon....


21 posted on 11/29/2009 11:16:05 AM PST by steve-b (Intelligent Design -- "A Wizard Did It")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Fine by me if you want to believe it is fascism to force your neighbor to sell an easement to the power company so that electricity can reach your house. You are wrong of course, but that is your right. From your post among the things you apparently don’t know are:

1. with government takings in the US, the party losing property rights must be compensated.

2. to be clearer even with a taking, private companies BUY what they need to deliver services or DO WITHOUT.

3. notice I said need to deliver services. Private companies do not want anything. They are in fact incapable of wanting as they are not human beings. They do however need certain things to produce and deliver the product they are selling.

But if you are with the anti-globalists/enviro crazies dreaming of a simpler time of no electricity, no phones etc, have at it. But admit that is who you are and quit claiming falsely to be a conservative.


22 posted on 11/29/2009 12:41:00 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JLS

This “easement” twaddle is a smoke screen to the issue, which is the corrupt “crony capitalism” (actually fascism) that the Supreme Court, to its eternal shame, endorsed in this case.


23 posted on 11/30/2009 8:21:10 AM PST by steve-b (Intelligent Design -- "A Wizard Did It")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson