Posted on 06/24/2005 8:35:12 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
Some Homeowners Vow To Stay Despite Ruling Against Them
But few options seem available
New London — Drive by Michael Cristofaro's home at 50 Denison Ave. tomorrow; he promises you'll see this sign: FOR SALE.
“I'm out of here. I'm selling my home,” Cristofaro, a New London resident for 43 years, said Thursday. “I'm a white-collar worker, a computer engineer. Who do they want living in this town?”
The Cristofaro family owns a second home, at 53 Goshen St., in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the city's right to take that home, and the homes of six other property owners, by eminent domain.
The decision came as no surprise to those fighting to save their homes.
“I sort of figured it would go that way,” said Byron Athenian, who lives at what used to be 78 Smith St. before the street in front of his house was demolished. “That's the way the government works.”
But there was anger nonetheless.
“Those justices made the wrong decision,” Cristofaro said. “Four of them protected our property rights; five threw them out the door. I hope their property is chosen next for eminent domain so they know what it's like to be thrown out into the street.”
And even though, after six years of fighting the city, the group seemed to have run low on options, several promised that they would never leave.
“I'm not going anywhere. I'm here,” said William von Winkle, who owns three buildings on what remains of Smith Street. “I'm going to fight until they give up. They can do their little development around here with us here or they can do no development and try to take it, because until they stop trying to take my property by eminent domain, they will not build anything at Fort Trumbull. It's simple as that.”
“I don't know how they're going to get us out,” Cristofaro agreed. “We're going to keep our homes to the bitter end, because what they've done is wrong.”
And they warned every citizen of New London and the nation at large that the court's ruling stripped them of their right to own private property.
“One of the most fundamental rights that the country was built upon has been pretty much obliterated,” said Scott Sawyer, a lawyer who represented the homeowners. “Owning property doesn't seem to amount to much in the United States anymore. Certainly, none of us own our property anymore.”
Richard Beyer, a plaintiff who owns two homes at 41 and 49 Goshen St., agreed.
“We've pretty much lost our right to have private property,” he said. “Everybody that owns homes, their homes are at risk for eminent domain.”
And that, said Beyer, Cristofaro and von Winkle, now translates into giving the land of small property owners to big corporations.
“As one gentleman that I just got off the phone with said, ‘Welcome to Russia,' ” Beyer said. “So it's scary. I just feel bad for my kids when they get to be my age and own their own home. They don't own it. Either the bank owns it or a private corporation's going to own it.”
The homeowners predicted that more land in the city would end up in the hands of private corporations.
“I guarantee you that just about every house from Howard Street to Shaw's Cove is going to be targeted,” Beyer said. “I see that whole district in New London as being Pfizer's business park. It'll be like Avery Point minus the houses. You'll have access to Fort Trumbull State Park and that'll be it.”
Beyer, who with a partner had renovated one of his two houses and was working on the second when the city took them, said one bitter lesson he had learned was never again to do business in New London.
And he pointed out the city has never delivered on its promise that Pfizer's arrival in the city would mean lower taxes.
“The city of New London promised all the residents of New London that all your property taxes will be reduced,” he said. “That promise was never fulfilled. The taxes keep going up ... When is enough enough?”
And who, several asked, would want to build in the Fort Trumbull area now?
“They're taking the properties for an obsolete plan,” von Winkle said. “Today, who would build a hotel in New London, Connecticut? And they certainly wouldn't build an office building. We have half the city empty now. So what are they taking it for?”
For Cristofaro, the home at 53 Goshen St. is the second the city has taken from his family by eminent domain. The city took the first house, on Woodbridge Street near Shaw's Cove, in 1972.
It was a home, Cristofaro said, that his father had lovingly surrounded with fruit trees, grapevines, yews and rhododendrons.
Today it is a parking lot.
What the heck good would a Constitutional Amendment do? We've already got one.Now that you bring up one of the main cancerous diseases devouring the heart and soul of America . .The Constitution means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this country anymore.
This is a nation of lawlessness.===========================================
Great post. Wonder if the land for the Clinton Lie-bury was obtained by eminent domain.
Don't you remember that a historic building, built by slaves, was torn down for the Clinton library? It was a post office or somesuch kind of building, pictures were posted here but I didn't save them!
Admirable stance, but in the end they will be branded the outlaw and homeless anyway except for their cell, or worse yet, dead.
"....................."
LOL! Interesting comment-refrences, please.
F.J., I believe E.G.C's response is:
You paid for it, fine. What about the person you bought it from? And the one he bought it from? What is the origin? Further, can you leave the property to your children? What entity permits that?
Get beyond the anger. Anger is just leading to hypertension. Get to the library and start working. it's not a simple problem.
It's more than just PC & illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" of the Bush administration. It is the Administrative Branch of the Federal government pretending a law does not exit.
We have the Legislative Branch pretending the Constitution does not exist. They are allowing a minority of congressmen to prevent the Constitution mandate of advice and consent.
We have the Judicial Branch pretending the Constitution does not protect the citizenry from their government taking property for personal enrichment. The Judicial reads a plain and simple document and tells us it doesn't say what it says and it says what it doesn't say.
So it is no surprise we have a citizenry that has no respect for the law nor for the government.
#211 - makes you want to bawl like a baby.
Very good. :-)
Lots of great "stuff" on the web (& FR posts) to work with - WebTV used to use that HiWay.gif as your receiver was connecting to the internet - I like to make some of the animations audio-link interactive but it is difficult with so many images
That graphic kind of ties in SCOTUS "takings" and illegal aliens and clowns in general in the government
Happy2BMe mentioned Big Yeller Taxi" by Joni Mitchell
I figured Joni could use a plug with the younger set that did not know her - it works for Elvis
Hillary needs the PR too.....
That is excellent!
Simply perfect!
Thanks!
Which profits are you talking about? The ones gained in a free, uncoerced marketplace or the ones gained by using political clout, corruption and bribery to get what you want?
Just me AGAIN, making the same 4th of July suggestion of flying the flag upside down on THIS CRITICAL issue -- Have you noticed how few to NO community, or more importantly, national leaders, Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative have come to the defense or condemnation of the Supreme Court's erosion of our 5th Amendment rights last week?
Thomas Jefferson had THIS to say --
"To consider the judges (the legal industry) as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges (the legal industry) are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
Then --
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
Catch that last line again: "The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
As I've been saying for so long, "It's the legal industry, stupid." They've been playing us against each other while they've quietly been taking control.
Regrettably, it appears that except for local and national "conservative" talk-show hosts, the nation has been lulled back to sleep.
Nevertheless, we've still got our flag upside down for the fourth. Take care, all!
HDRabon
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.
