[k_semler]

http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/c ... oid:119000

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."

[rogerhb]

I heard a story that if you were executed in China, your family had to pay for the bullet.

[ubercrap]

What a brazen and cruel move...I'm starting to agree with your sig. k_semler.

[The_Toecutter]

That's how things are living in the U.S.S.A. komrade.

[k_semler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'I') heard a story that if you were executed in China, your family had to pay for the bullet.

[MicroHydro]

Ah, corporatism at its finest, that is the term Mussolini preferred.

[k_semler]

I'll drink to that.

[Specop_007]

Comes a point in time when a man has to vote with his aim and not his arm.

I think I'd send the wife n kids to the grandparents and pick up a one way ticket to Hell.
Passengers? The City Council.

[Daculling]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'C')omes a point in time when a man has to vote with his aim and not his arm.

I think I'd send the wife n kids to the grandparents and pick up a one way ticket to Hell.
Passengers? The City Council.

[parainwater]

Tyrants should remember that when the chips are down
there is nothing more dangerous than a man who has
nothing to lose.

[evilmonkeyspanker]

All I got to say is the first time something like that happened to me GOD HELP THEM, because everyon else will be running.

[whiteknight]

Ah, Democracy! Such a wonderful system, where a mans home is his castle...

[ubercynicmeister]

There's an old line from a Frank Sinatra Movie: "When your opponents hold all of the cards, i'ts time to kick over the table."

[I_Like_Plants]

I agree, the birthplace of the guy's 87-year old mother........ all the time growing up my family never had a place to call their own, "owned" a couple of places but it was a huge farce, living in pins and needles and foreclosed out ...... if it were me, I'd take that one way ticket to hell gladly and I'll be the engineer, choochoo get on the train, you're picked, BANG. Take a lot of them with me, when you take everything away from a person, they get mighty fearless since they have nothing left to lose. It would be a worthy Jihad.

I wonder how "secure" owning is at all? I can name quite a few people who are on pins and needles worried about losing their place they "own" and even the more secure ones are paying more than they'd pay in rent just to keep the lights on and the water running, the taxman paid and the roof repaired. Meanwhile I feel pretty secure renting, the rent's not hard to come up with and if it ever isn't, something will come along. It seems more security comes with owning LESS......

[Doly]

If you own a place, you are tied to that place. Maybe you don't want to be tied to anywhere.

[I_Like_Plants]

We tried being tied to a place, because owning a place takes a TON of money, we were always chased off essentially, whenever we got settled into a place and got too comfortable.

I fully understand the Indians etc who were and are willing to die defending THEIR PLACE.

I want to find a place I can't be run out of by invasions of other tribes, an oppressive government, etc. I think most of us are looking for that, whether we're conscious of it or not.

[gg3]

There are very few occasions where I would support armed insurrection. This is one of them. That's saying a lot.

Legally there may be a basis for them to win on this one, on the basis of "ex-post-facto law." The land could not be considered taken over by the government until such time as the court cases are resolved. The same principle applies to the year-2000 buy-out offers.

This is nothing more than a grab and a bunch of excuses. Tie it up in the courts for as long as possible, then take it to the ballot box, then if need be, take it to the ammo box.

I lived in Connecticut for many years. I always felt it was a civilized state. No longer.

----

There is a larger principle at work here, which I refer to as "mammal rights." Every mammal has a natural and inalienable right to build a nest, provide for its own food and water, occupy its nest for the duration of its natural lifespan, and provide for the safety of itself and its offspring.

And even beyond that, think of this for a moment:

Your body always occupies a set of coordinates in four-space: a specific place for a specific period of time. This is more fundamental than life itself: it is a necessary precondition for the existence of any physical object in the known universe.

If someone can extract energy (work, money) from you for the mere fact of occupying a set of coordinates in fourspace, you are not free.

It doesn't matter if the entity doing the extracting differs depending on where exactly in fourspace you are located. From the perspective of yourself as an entity, if any viable location in fourspace is subject to someone else extracting money from you, only the name of your master has changed; the fact that you are a slave to someone has not changed.

[HoveRoyal]

This case is awful. Sounds to me like the people involved need to get themselves a new lawyer!

The thing is, in a modern judical system there are usually several angles you can take on a case than the seemingly straightforward. Having tried the direct route they should be thinking a little more laterally, eg...

Human Rights violations by the council? Must be one in there somewhere...

An injunction on the council for acting ultra vires - a city council wouldn't usually have within its powers the act of commercial property speculation?

Procedural - did the council follow its own procedure? They must have cocked up somewhere along the line...

and so on... I'm sure you can come up with more.

Ultimately though, they just need to make as much noise and publicity as they possibly can, and a political solution will be found. Let's face it, what politician likes to be seen screwing their own constituents, even if that's exactly what they're doing? Not good for votes...

[Hawkcreek]

--