Another E.D. thread: now they want back rent

[LRDisco]

Fairfield Weekly: A New (London) Low

A New (London) Low
A refrigerator box under the bridge: The Kelo Seven prepares for the worst

by Jonathan O'Connell - July 14, 2005
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 .

The hard rains started falling that year, when Matt Dery and his neighbors in Fort Trumbull learned that the city planned to replace their homes with a hotel, a conference center, offices and upscale housing that would complement the adjoining Pfizer Inc. research facility.

The city, citing eminent domain, condemned their homes, told them to move and began leveling surrounding houses. Dery and six of his neighbors fought the takeover, but five years later, on June 23, the downpour of misfortune continued as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city could claim the property for economic development.

Dery owns four buildings on the project site, including his home and the birthplace and lifelong home of his 87-year-old mother, Wilhelmina. Dery plans to make every remaining effort to keep his land, but with few legal options remaining, he's planning for the worst.

And for good reason. It's reasonable to think that people who purchased property years ago (in some cases, decades ago) would be in a position to cash in, especially since they're being forced from their homes. But that's not the case.

The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.

"I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low."

And there are more storms on the horizon. 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. Any money made from tenantssome residents' only form of incomewould also have to be paid to the city.

With language seemingly lifted straight from The Goonies , NLDC's lawyers wrote, "We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case." They warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be.

A lawyer for the residents, Scott Bullock, responded to the letter on July 8, 2004, asserting that the NLDC had agreed to forgo rents as part of a pretrial agreement in which the residents in turn agreed to a hastened trial schedule. Bullock called the NLDC's effort at obtaining back rent "a new low."

"It seems like it is simply a desperate attempt by a nearly broke organization to try to come up with more funds to perpetuate its own existence," Bullock wrote. He vowed to respond to any lawsuit with another.

With the case nearly closed, the NLDC may soon make good on its promise to sue. Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who teaches property law, says it's not clear who might prevail in a legal battle over rent. "From a political standpoint, the city might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," he says.

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."

That's one way to get out of the rain.

What the fuck?

[apeters89]

Originally Posted by LRDisco

What the fuck?

couldn't have said it better myself.

[rockota]

this is perfect. They say they want the land, then start charging rent so outrageous that the homeowner will end up owing the city for taking the land from them...

[schitzangiggles]

Hope that new development has great fire protection. Be a damn shame if it caught fire and burned to the ground with all of the asshats who made this CF possable.

[SteveZ59]

You know, I'm not generally a very high strung confrontational individual, but this would be enough to push someone into purchasing a sniper rifle and climbing the closest bell tower.

Now they can use this as leverage against anyone who even considers trying to fight an eminent domain closure. "Take the paltry offer that we are makeing now or after we win we will bend you over and make you wish you had never been born." How many people, faced with that kind of threat could afford to fight, no matter how strong their conviction. You can't even have the satisfaction of burning the place to the ground, because they want the land and that would just make the cleanup even easier for them.

With this now becoming the "in" thing for local governments, I don't see how it can be too long in the future before we are reading about Ruby Ridge style standoffs. Many will simply take the money and try to move on with what's left of their life, but the more you do this type of thing, the greater the chance they will find someone willing to die for their conviction.

[Haole]

I was just talking to my stepfather, a retired judge, and he doesn't think this will go far in the courts. He thought it was rediculous.

[animator]

Originally Posted by SteveZ59

Many will simply take the money and try to move on with what's left of their life, but the more you do this type of thing, the greater the chance they will find someone willing to die for their conviction.

The problem with that is, once the cities have taken ALL the land, where will people go? If this is allowed to continue the way it is, cities and governments WILL own all the land. Then where will people live? On land owned by the government and be charged in the thousands of dollars for rent?? I don't think so. People need to stand up to it NOW, and stop this shit from happening before it gets too much more out of control.

[LRDisco]

Originally Posted by animator

The problem with that is, once the cities have taken ALL the land, where will people go? If this is allowed to continue the way it is, cities and governments WILL own all the land. Then where will people live? On land owned by the government and be charged in the thousands of dollars for rent?? I don't think so. People need to stand up to it NOW, and stop this shit from happening before it gets too much more out of control.

Problem being that this isn't the 1800's, and you can't stand up to them with a rifle and a shotgun. We need to fight crap like this in court, but how many lawyers do you know that will take cases like this pro bono?

Damn, where's the Duke boys and the General Lee when you need them?

[makya]

Originally Posted by LRDisco

Problem being that this isn't the 1800's, and you can't stand up to them with a rifle and a shotgun. We need to fight crap like this in court, but how many lawyers do you know that will take cases like this pro bono?

The problem is that someone WILL stand up to them with a rifle and a shotgun, and get themselves killed. We don't need a martyr, or do we?

[FourBanger]

Originally Posted by animator

The problem with that is, once the cities have taken ALL the land, where will people go? If this is allowed to continue the way it is, cities and governments WILL own all the land. Then where will people live? On land owned by the government and be charged in the thousands of dollars for rent?? I don't think so. People need to stand up to it NOW, and stop this shit from happening before it gets too much more out of control.

Even if you buy a house and some land, you still pay thousands of dollars in rent every year. It's called property tax.

I see what you're saying, though. This shit's getting ridiculous.

[Priest]

When I saw ED... I didn't think emminate domain...

[FourBanger]

Erectile Dysfunction?

[Priest]

Originally Posted by FourBanger

Erectile Dysfunction?

exactly.... I just finished the Viagara can make you blind thread.

[FourBanger]

And you can still see?

[Priest]

Originally Posted by FourBanger

And you can still see?

It's temporary and it's easier than tieing on a blind fold.

[Malltero]

If they did this to me I would spend the rest of my short life killing as many individuals involved as I could. I love my country but this would push me to my breaking point. I wouldnt stop until they were dead or I was dead!!!

I would also turn the property into the minefield if could pull it off.

[schitzangiggles]

If they tried this crap with me, they would find the cost of cleaning up thier construction site far more than any income they would ever recieve. Put me on the watch list cause if you try to take my land and my rights, some bodies are gonna fertilize the tree of liberty...

[LRDisco]

Originally Posted by makya

The problem is that someone WILL stand up to them with a rifle and a shotgun, and get themselves killed. We don't need a martyr, or do we?

Only if you want a violent revolution in your hands (take a look at the two responses above me).

Problem with that is that we're stuck with enough pussies on both side of the aisles that the chic Republicans and Democrats are going to start waving either the fringe gun nut banner, or the homegrown terrorist banner when something like this happens.

One or two people might be willing to pick up that Remington or AK and start poping off rounds, but it won't mean shit unless an extremely large group of individuals backs them up. And even then, what are we going to do, go up against SWAT teams? The National Guard when they declare martial law? And what of the economy and public relations abroad when the government has to shut down trading and business in Washington?

Sadly enough, the only real way is through litigation, and something big enough to catch national coverage in every network, for at least a month. Otherwise, we're gonna keep running around licking each others asses about what we would do, and not what we are going to do.

[StinkBug]

Ya know, I just finished reading "Road Work" by Stephen King. I could totally see the same things happening here. Fawked up.

Dallas

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by LRDisco

Only if you want a violent revolution in your hand
One or two people might be willing to pick up that Remington or AK

what are we going to do, go up against SWAT teams? The National Guard when they declare martial law?

Sadly enough, the only real way is through litigation

No, sadly enough, the only real way is through lifting up our arms against them. does it seem a daunting, maybe impossible task to take up arms and defend yourself against the SWAT or National Guard?

Guess what...people have taken up arms and defended against worse, in countries with fewer rights. Do you think the man in Tianimann Square in front of the tank was concerned at that point about the absurdity of going against something *weaker* than our own military??? Litigation is the rabbit hole of the weak right now, don't be one of them.

[kfuss]

http://news4colorado.com/topstories/...156173524.html

Reminds me of the same thing. I wonder if people who are injured or economically disadvantaged in any way during these rampages brought on by the cities have sued the cities directly. A savy lawer could make the connection of responsibility to the city, hell juries found mcdonald's responsible for making water too HOT (coffee). (Ok, technically it was the design of the cup or some such crap, but you get the point)

A big enough class action suit could cripple the NLDC, or at least delay it enough to make the developers move on...

[Sully]

The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.

So where are the defenders of Eminent Domain to champion the fact that "every case they've ever seen ended up with the property owner gteting a generous payout?"

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

This shit makes me steam. At this point, they are just being petty.

[Whitewater]

Originally Posted by Sully

So where are the defenders of Eminent Domain to champion the fact that "every case they've ever seen ended up with the property owner gteting a generous payout?"





This shit makes me steam. At this point, they are just being petty.

Yeah, Zakk, doesn't sound like these people are getting a fair shake from their local government now does it....

[Myanarchy]

I'd file bankrupcy, and build as many meth labs as I possibly could. Collect Radioactive waste from hospitals, and any biohazard I possibly could and contaminate that land so bad that it would be useless

[bigun]

I was trying to find the story of board walk buissness's being condemned inn Fl. to make way for new multimillon hotel when I found this.

Supreme Court won't reconsider New London case

(Washington-AP, Aug. 22, 2005 12:05 PM) _ The Supreme Court, given a chance to revisit a heavily criticized ruling, refused Monday to reconsider its decision giving local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development.

So contentious was the court's narrow 5-4 ruling in the so-called eminent domain case earlier this year that some critics launched a campaign to seize Justice David Souter's farmhouse in New Hampshire to build a luxury hotel. Others singled out Justice Stephen Breyer's vacation home in the same state for use as a park.

Both Souter and Breyer voted on the prevailing side. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who did not, sharply criticized her colleagues at the time. She said in a minority opinion that the ruling favored the well-heeled over the less fortunate.

In addition, legislators in some 25 states are considering changing their eminent domain laws to soften the impact.

Justices did not comment Monday in refusing to reconsider the case, which had been expected because requests for a reconsideration of rulings are rarely granted.

O'Connor, whose decision to retire created the opening that Washington lawyer John Roberts now seeks to fill, wrote in her angry dissent of June that "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property."

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion and defended it last week in a speech in Las Vegas. The ruling was legally correct, he said, because the high court has "always allowed local policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals."

But Stevens said he had concerns about the results.

"My own view is that the allocation of economic resources that result from the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials," Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association.

Legal experts had said they did not expect the court's ruling, involving an economic development project in New London, Conn., to prompt a rush to claim homes.

Stevens said that "the public outcry that greeted (the ruling) is some evidence that the political process is up to the task of addressing such policy concerns."

The case is Kelo v. City of New London, 04-108.

------