Posted on 09/16/2015 2:53:01 AM PDT by markomalley
Every day, Janet Rodriguez sits at her home in West Haven, Conn., and she waits.
She waits for a knock at her front door, a knock she fears will bring news that Rodriguez and her family will be forced to leave the home they’ve lived in for nearly a decade. A knock that means the city has exhausted its efforts to negotiate with Rodriguez and her family and is moving to condemn their house to make way for a $200-million high-end mall.
Rodriguez, along with her neighbors on First Avenue, is fighting the city of West Haven to keep her home. But still, every day, she waits.
In 2005, a pregnant Rodriguez; her husband, Fernando; and their young son decided to leave New York for West Haven in search of more room for their growing family. The young mother had previously visited relatives who lived in the area, and the Connecticut town appealed to the family as a good place to raise their children.
They fell in love with a house on the east side of First Avenue, and for the last 10 years, it’s what the Rodriguez family have called home.
“Moving is hard for people,” Rodriguez said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “It’s very stressful, and to find another place to live and call your home—your home is memories. We’ve endured so many things in this house. Bad things have happened to us, but this is our house.”
In January, Rodriguez learned that the city and two developers were interested in her property, along with other homes and businesses along First Avenue, after a surveyor knocked on Rodriguez’s door and asked to take measurements of her property.
The city, Rodriguez later found out, was working with a developer to build a $200-million, 425,000-square-foot waterfront project called The Haven, a high-end mall that includes 100 outlet stores and six restaurants.
And Rodriguez’s property sits in the southern corner of the proposed project.
For months, Rodriguez never heard anything from the city regarding what land would be redeveloped for The Haven. Then, in May, a realtor knocked on her door and told Rodriguez the home was included in the redevelopment plan.
“I told the realtor the house wasn’t for sale,” Rodriguez recalled.
One month later, the West Haven City Council approved a plan giving the city and its development authority, the West Haven Development Authority, the ability to exercise its eminent domain powers and condemn Rodriguez and her neighbors’ properties to build The Haven.
“We pay taxes. This is our home,” Rodriguez said. “[Developers] don’t even know West Haven. They just look at the map and say we’re going to make a mall. They don’t even look at the people in the middle.”
50 Miles Down the Road
Under the Fifth Amendment’s Public Use Clause, the government can exercise its eminent domain power to take property from private residents if it satisfies two conditions: it’s for public use, and just compensation is provided.
However, over the last few decades, the definition of public use has broadened from what was traditionally thought of as the transfer of property for a school, bridge, or road to the transfer of property from one private party to another.
That change occurred in 2005, after Susette Kelo, a mother of five boys, led a years-long battle against the city of New London, Conn., in an effort to save her little pink house.
Officials in New London, located just 50 miles east of West Haven, exercised their eminent domain power to condemn Kelo’s home, along with property belonging to six other families, to make way for a hotel, restaurants, shops, and a renovated marina.
The redevelopment was intended to complement an adjacent Pfizer facility, but after the pharmaceutical giant left New London, the city’s redevelopment plans never panned out. Kelo’s pink house, which became a symbol of the fight, and her neighbors’ homes were demolished, but today, all that sits on the property is an empty field overgrown with weeds.
Kelo’s case against New London went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2005 that the city was well within its rights under the Public Use Clause to seize property under eminent domain for the purpose of transferring it to another private entity.
The ruling became one of the most despised in the high court’s history, and it sparked backlash from the public and state legislatures. After the Supreme Court’s decision was handed down in 2005, more than 40 states passed laws limiting the use of eminent domain for transfers of property from one private party to another. In 11 of those states, legislatures passed constitutional amendments.
Connecticut was not one of those states.
In an interview with The Daily Signal, Brooke Fallon, activism manager for the Institute for Justice, pointed to the Kelo case as an example of how redevelopment plans can fall through. The Institute for Justice represented Kelo.
“In this situation, we have a town that’s 50 miles down the road from Kelo,” she said. “There’s an example down the street of how using eminent domain for private use can fall apart. All they have to do is see what’s going on there and that it’s a risky move for them. They should allow the property owners to stay.”
A ‘Last Resort’
Next door to Rodriguez’s home sits property owned by Bob McGinnity, who has lived in West Haven for nearly 50 years.
A lifelong Connecticut resident and retired railroad conductor, McGinnity thought his family “upgraded” when they moved from nearby New Haven to West Haven when he was just a little kid.
Today, McGinnity’s sister still resides in the town.
Like Rodriguez, McGinnity didn’t know his home on First Avenue was going to be included in the redevelopment plan for The Haven, and like Rodriguez, he doesn’t plan to move.
“They say they’ll use eminent domain as a last resort,” he said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “I don’t know what that means. That means nothing. I don’t care if you say the very last resort; you’re taking my home.”
The developers, two “cowboys from Texas,” McGinnity said, have offered what he calls “fair-market value” for his home. However, he has no plans to accept the developers’ offers.
“What they want to give me compared to what they’re going to make from my property is quite wide of a difference,” he said, “and I also believe if you’re taking my house, you can’t tell me how much you want to give me.”
‘We’re Going to Fight’
In the two months since the West Haven City Council approved the use of eminent domain for the properties where The Haven will be built, Rodriguez has received several offers from the developer to purchase her home.
However, after paying off the current mortgage on her First Avenue home, Rodriguez said she wouldn’t have enough money to make a down payment on a new home.
“To buy another house wouldn’t be like buying your first house,” she said. “It’s going to be harder to get another mortgage and good interest rate. We don’t want to start from the bottom again. It’s not being greedy. I have two kids. We’ve been here for almost 10 years.”
Rodriguez last heard from the developer on August 29, when the realtor working with the developers left her a voicemail saying they wanted to work with the family and help them get to “yes.” Rodriguez never called the realtor back.
“That’s the end of the conversation,” she said.
According to the city, of the 56 parcels located on the land for The Haven, 48 are currently under contract.
In an email to The Daily Signal, Riccio, the commissioner of Planning and Development for West Haven, said the city will negotiate with property owners if the developer’s negotiations fail.
“The city hopes that the Haven will provide much needed tax revenues and jobs for its citizens,” he said in the email. “Of equal importance is what The Haven will mean to the city of West Haven. This will be the largest investment in the city of West Haven in its history.
“It will make West Haven a destination, stimulate other development (it already has), and it will buoy the spirit of its citizens.”
While Rodriguez doesn’t blame the city for wanting good things for West Haven, she doesn’t see why the city has to take her home to accomplish its goals of bringing more revenue and jobs to the city. And she plans on fighting to keep her home.
“[My youngest son] said, ‘Mommy, why are you letting these people take our home?’ I said it’s not up to me. It’s up to the people who have the power and the money,” Rodriguez said. “I want him to see me fighting. I will fight to the end.”
It’s a statement of fact for Rodriguez, one McGinnity echoed.
“We’re going to fight.”
Dissenting: O'Connor [Reagan], Rehnquist [Nixon], Scalia [Reagan] and Thomas [Bush 41]
I point this out because 3 out of 5 of the black-robes who approved Kelo were appointed by politicians with (R) after their names. Need to keep that in mind as we figure out who to nominate for 2016.
Well, there is one candidate on the Republican side who came down firmly in favor of the Kelo decision......
When you live in a State that does not value personal property, you suffer according to its whims.
Connecticut in its infinite liberal wisdom chose not to make it illegal for this to happen (when 40 other states fixed that egregious Supreme Court decision).
The one universal truth of this is that even when a liberal tugs on the heart strings like they are prone to do, it means nothing when it comes between other liberals and their money (property taxes, probably).
You get what you vote for.
Yes. True. As did three Justices appointed by three DIFFERENT Republican Presidents, one of them even Reagan.
Personally, I don’t think it’s within the purview of the Federal Government to be regulating anything about personal property. That duty should fall on the States, because it is solely a state-confined matter.
The problem here is that her state chose NOT to counteract that Kelo decision by making it illegal to take property in such a fashion. My state, rightly so, did.
Well you went off and inappropriately conflated two ideas to try and make a point. FIRST you conflated a Presidential candidate himself VERSUS someone that President appointed. Really very flawed.
Second, with Reagan, it was what, 30 years....35 years after appointment that his appointee went bad on Kelo? Come on man.......Kennedy is not the man Reagan appointed decades ago. Don’t compare that to what a candidate said very recently.
Why don’t the developers purchase all the properties at their asking price? Because that would be too expensive. So they use eminent domain’s public use clause to build their private property, for private use. Since the public, i.e., local government, is not developing the project there is no assurance it will be completed which leaves the ‘public use’ clause unsubstantiated.
Or I could just say “democrats”
Equally conflated with your first comparison of a candidate of today with actions that happened long ago by President Appointed Justices’ decisions. If mine is flawed, yours is too.
For the candidate you are implying, he has offered agreement with it. That’s on him. However, his deeds and actions can best be examined in the case of the “little old lady” and the house he wanted to buy so he could build a parking lot for his casino. In the end, he didn’t “take” it from her using government - he offered her a very good sum. She decided she could get more. Eventually, she got less than he’d offered when she put it up for auction/sale.
It isn’t just Democrats that do this. There are plenty of local counties and cities that are Republican that get the $$ signs in their eyes on the massive property tax increases they can get.
The evil of any government is when it values revenue (they can use at their virtual whim) over freedom and basic rights. I moved northward three counties in my state to get away from thieves like this.
(when 40 other states fixed that egregious Supreme Court decision).
I would point out that some 30 states passed constitutional amendments or laws banning homosexual marriages...we see just how much that mattered....
It's one of many reasons that businesses and smart people are fleeing the state. A once great state which hosted any number of industries and businesses and whose citizens paid no income tax is now circling the drain. The parasites killed the host.
I guess your reading comp is not very good. I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that a candidate of today still supports KELO today. Period. Game set match.
The Donald is very fond of this concept, has used more than once.
Yet by your own implication the President has no impact in the later decisions (as in Reagan’s choice and your assertion he can’t be held accountable for a Justice’s change of heart later).
How many times have we heard a candidate say “I’m personally against Abortion, but will follow the law” or “I won’t use this or that as a litmus test in choosing a Justice nomination” and so on? The truth is that they ALL lie, equivocate or dissemble. At least here, you know what you’ll get. In this particular case in 40 of the states, the point is moot. Those states have essentially invalidated the Kelo decision as they should have.
You didn’t ‘merely point out’. It was an attempt at candidate advocacy (good or bad) instead of discussing basic rights. I explained my thoughts on the rights and who has purview, or should have.
All you did is a “guilt by association” thing. I gave you an example of thoughts vs. action - you chose to ignore it.
You have your answer from this candidate; you can take that and adjust your vote accordingly, as will millions of others. We’ll see how it turns out.
your lack of logic is so bizarre that your posting is nothing but babble.
bye.
And I gave an example where he did not use it. There was a thread here a while back where the headline was basically “Bad Developer Tries to Take Away Little Old Lady’s House”. Really damaging on the face of it - until the facts of the story were examined in more detail.
I get that you’re anti-Trump....this is just one example of it.
You're still mixing apples and oranges and don't have the intelligence to see it. First, I never said NO IMPACT and second - that still ignores the apples/oranges candidate versus appointee today versus 30 years ago dynamic. You just can't follow at this altitude, and I'll not dip to your level.
I am not anti Trump so much as I am anti the unthinking pretzel logic Trump fan bois.
I’ll put you down in that category.
Any conservative who doesn’t have a big problem with Trump on Kelo is, well, no real conservative. That’s a basic foundational limited government principle.
The only reason why 40 states were able to fix that decision was that the Supreme Court upheld the right of a state to determine when eminent domain could be used and when it could not. Since the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision then what the court did was uphold the 10th Amendment and the Connecticut Supreme Court's power to decide that question in their state. We can disagree with the state court's decision but at the end of the day it should be the right of the state to decide it. Just as it should be the right of the state to decide that eminent domain should not be used in such cases.
Oh wow....condescend much? Usually, when one loses an argument, this happens......
Apples/oranges? Nomination today vs 30 years ago? These appointments are all for a lifetime and time passes.
You’re saying that 30 years passing absolves someone’s choice (Reagan’s for example) because enough time has passed? How could one not make the same allowance for a nomination today? Time will eventually pass and the justice could “evolve” the other way if mean old Donald Trump nominates a “property taker”.
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.