Taken In Vain: New London's Folly

Hartford Courant ^ | 11/15/09 | Jeff Benedict

[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....

[Vaquero]

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

[PubliusMM]

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.

[gussiefinknottle]

How about personally thanking Bill Clinton and John Sununu?

[Vaquero]

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.

[JLS]

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.

[ridesthemiles]

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.

[Vaquero]

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

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

[JLS]

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.

[Lurker]

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.

[Hoodat]

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

[Hoodat]

Kilo.

[jpsb]

"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.

[Vaquero]

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

[Lurker]

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

[Vaquero]

I think he played eddie munster...LOL

[steve-b]

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....

[steve-b]

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....

[JLS]

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.

[jpsb]

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