Posted on 07/05/2005 11:55:58 AM PDT by Jubal Harshaw
NEW LONDON, Conn.
...homeowners and New London officials are now turning their attention to the monetary value of houses and property being taken ....
real estate prices have escalated in five years and Kelo and her neighbors will not profit from the increased value of their homes....
State law requires governments to compensate owners on the date of the taking, not its value in the current market. New London has technically owned the houses since 2000....
Because the city has technically owned the houses since 2000, its lawyers believe residents were living in the houses as tenants free of charge as the litigation proceeded....
lawyers for the homeowners were informed that their clients could be liable for use and occupancy fees if the courts upheld the city's use of eminent domain.
Information from: The Day, http://www.theday.com
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
(1) New London is planning to pay Kelo for the 2000 value of the property, not the 2005 value. Needless to say, the 2000 value is likely a LOT lower
(2) The city has already informed lawyers for Kelo et al that Kelo et al could be charged for rent for the time between 2000 and Kelo's eventual leaving of the property.
Discuss.
Time for weapons.
This just gets better and better! /s
Not a good idea to rub the noses of an angry public into the mud like that.
Won't be long before widespread bloodshed happens over eminent domain. I hold the government responsible for any deaths.
Who paid the yearly taxes.
What a reaming these people got. Absolutely unjustified.
"The state is claiming that they owned Kelo's land from the day that they decided to take it."
This is getting nonsensical. Did the city of New London hold title to the property? Pay insurance? Here comes a new lawsuit to allow the court to reverse itself.
i'm sure the city will gladly give back all property taxes they collected since then...
It gets worse and worse,doesn't it?
Damned government and damned SCOTUS.
There will probably be riots in the streets before this is over.I hope I'm wrong.
Why not just poke them in the eye with a stick? It would probably hurt a lot less.
I can get the tar who has the feathers??
Pathetic, but sounds like they're just taking advantage of the laws on the books. Of course, if the property values had somehow dropped in the interim, I imagine they'd find some form of justification for paying the lower price...
(2) The city has already informed lawyers for Kelo et al that Kelo et al could be charged for rent for the time between 2000 and Kelo's eventual leaving of the property.
This is just adding injury to insult.
>>>Because the city has technically owned the houses since 2000, its lawyers believe residents were living in the houses as tenants free of charge as the litigation proceeded.... >>>
BRILLIANT! God Bless Amerika.
"i'm sure the city will gladly give back all property taxes they collected since then..."
Would New London be immune to charges of fraud, due to collecting taxes upon properties that it now claims to own?
You know, that was my first thought. These people need lawyers and rifles - this has to be settled differently than the insane Supreme Court position. Weird how the msm didn't give any notable attention to this case...
>>>There will probably be riots in the streets before this is over.I hope I'm wrong.>>>
I hope you ARE wrong. Without riots, nothing will change and the government will CONTINUE to OWN us.
"lawyers believe residents were living in the houses as tenants free of charge as the litigation proceeded...."
Their own houses?! WT......
The residents were required to submit to the city an accounting of their income and expenses. They didn't do it--good for them.
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.