Posted on 03/05/2004 1:03:33 AM PST by yonif
In a case that has ramifications for large urban development projects around Connecticut, the state Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that eminent domain powers were properly used in New London for a private waterfront development.
The court found that the New London Development Corp. was within its rights to take homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, even if they are not in a blighted area. The court concluded redevelopment plans would increase tax revenue and create jobs, which amount to a public benefit that eminent domain powers were designed to aid.
The homeowners claimed the project, including a hotel, office space and conference center, was being built primarily to benefit the drug company Pfizer Inc., which has its research and development headquarters nearby. The court rejected that claim.
On a 4-3 vote, the court also shot down the residents' allegation that eminent domain was improperly used on some parcels because the development group had no concrete plans to redevelop the site. The homeowners did not prove that the developers had acted in bad faith or abused its power, the court said.
"Both federal and state courts place an overwhelming emphasis on the legislative purpose and motive behind the taking, and give substantial deference to the legislative determination of purpose," Justice Flemming L. Norcott Jr. wrote in the majority opinion.
The three justices who dissented on that issue said there should be more concrete plans to redevelop a parcel before it can be taken by eminent domain. It is not fair to use a "Field of Dreams" approach to eminent domain - expecting that if eminent domain is exercised, development will follow, they said.
Lawyers for the city and the development authority said the decision was important for New London's revitalization. "It says that distressed municipalities like New London can be put on equal footing with suburbs, on equal footing to increase their tax rolls," said the development group's lawyer, Ed O'Connell. "It shows there's hope for cities to become economically vital again."
Homeowner Matthew Dery, whose family has lived in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood for more than 100 years, said he and his neighbors are angry about the decision, but they are not discouraged that they will ultimately win. "It certainly could have gone the other way, and the court could have done not only what was legal, but what was right," Dery said.
The city has not notified homeowners that they will now be evicted, he said. And, given changing economic conditions, he questioned whether the project will be built anyway. "We're still here. We like it here, and we'd like to stay here. So even with the decision that came down today, we are not in any mood to go," Dery said.
The city's lawyers, however, said the project will progress, although changes will be made from the original plan that was approved in 2000.
The homeowners were represented by the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based group that fights eminent domain abuses nationwide.
Their lawyer, Scott Bullock, said he would try to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court by arguing the eminent domain violated homeowners' constitutional rights against property seizure. "This is a very contentious issue across the country. Courts are coming down on all sides of this issue right now," Bullock said.
Pfizer said it was pleased that the court found the development was primarily for the benefit of New London, not just for Pfizer. "We strongly believe that our significant investment and presence has greatly benefited this community. We are determined to ensure that our presence continues to contribute to the city's success," the company said in a written statement.
Some residents in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood have been fighting the development since 2000.
The area originally had about 90 homes, and most owners willingly sold them or they were taken by eminent domain. Residents of 15 homes in one section of the site fought the idea, and several filed a lawsuit. They were allowed to stay in their homes while the case went through court.
Homeowners protested in part because there was no specific plan for how their parcels would be developed. A $40 million U.S. Coast Guard museum has been suggested for some of the site, but there is no firm plan and no funding. Approval for a museum to be built somewhere in the United States, with a preference for Connecticut, is before Congress.
A New London Superior Court judge in 2002 agreed that the some parts of the site needed a more specific plan to be eligible for eminent domain. He issued a split ruling that prohibited development on some parcels and allowed development on the other parcels.
The state Supreme Court, however, said the whole development was allowed. Joining Norcott in the majority opinion were Justices Christine Vertefeuille, David Borden and Richard Palmer.
Dissenting justices Joette Katz, Peter Zarella and Chief Justice William Sullivan said the majority opinion "overlooks the fact that private economic development differs in many important respects from how we have defined a public use in the past."
Every defining characteristic of a landlord-tenant relationship is present in the relationship between a "property owner" and the government.
The purchase price of your house is your security deposit.
Property taxes are the rent you pay. If you don't pay you are evicted.
Zoning laws, building codes, and additional regulations are conditions of your lease.
If the government can make more rent money off a new tenent, it will evict you (through eminent domain).
Free country, my arse.
Shifting property ownership from one private entity to another on dubious reasoning such as increasing tax revenue is not only un-American it's bald faced robbery.
Eminent domain was designed as a vehicle for the government to aquire land for important reasons (such as military buildings etc.), not to give property to corporations or put more spending money into the hands of socialist politicians.
These despicible "justices" ought to be stripped and dragged through the streets. This is outrageous.
We should be grateful to actually be alive and able to see socialism moving in and smothering our liberty. /large sarcasm/
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.