Court rules against homeowners in eminent domain case

WFSB ^ | 3/5/2004 | Associated Press

[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."

[DoughtyOne]

I'll bet there was a lot of property not on the waterfront that could have been developed a lot easier and for a hell of a lot less money, and without stealing land from hard working people.

This rip-off of prime real-estate wreaks.

[longtermmemmory]

I hope this is appealed to the federal courts.

[flashbunny]

bump to read tomorrow. Or later today, as it were.

[DustyMoment]

Local governments around the country have been illegally using their eminent domain powers to snatch property for development that will yield higher property tax revenues.

If we voters just read the stories and walk away in relief that it isn't happening to OUR neighborhood, we have no right to be surprised and indignant when the city or the county comes around and decides that OUR neighborhood would make a great Wal-Mart Supercenter.

I've seen too many of these stories and NO ONE can or will put the brakes on this type of illegal activity. It's time for us to show the so-called "Lawmakers" who owns the store. We are either going to put up or shut up; we can't have it both ways.

[Waco]

Will this go to the S.C. as the "Some are more equal than others case?" Stand by.......

[The Working Man]

When I read of Judicial Injustices like this. I truly feel that sometime in the future (and it may be near). The people affected will refuse to go quietly or peacefully and there will be a fight and possible bloodbath. And it may be aimed at the lawmakers pushing such things.

Just another step toward anarchy or total police state.

May God have mercy on us all and show these lawmakers, officials and justices the light before that happens.

[DB]

This is seriously wrong.

Eminent domain was created for major public projects like roads and dams not private developement where the property is simply transfered to another private owner for profit.

This makes me very angry. Private property is the base element of freedom. When that is lost, all is lost.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Nobody really "owns" property anymore. They rent it from the government. Pay your taxes or lose it to the government.

[Leisler]

Quiet, Serf!

[Professional Engineer]

ROFL

[kittymyrib]

This is exactly what Neal Boortz has been talking about on his radio show for the past year. People are being thrown off property their family has "owned" for generations because Walmart, or in this case Pfizer, wants to build on their property and the city councils want the biggest taxpaying entity to have the land. Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves when they see how the sheeple are being fleeced. King George III never tried anything like this and they fought the Revolutionary War over much less than what our local, state, and federal governments are doing every day.

[brityank]

Another shot through the wall of Private Property Rights.

IJ.org is a good outfit, stop on by:

[RipSawyer]

"ROFL"

I see nothing there to laugh about, it is all too real!

[FreePaul]

I hope this is appealed to the federal courts.

Does anyone believe that there is a federal court anywhere that believes "The Government" can be wrong when confiscating property?

[Professional Engineer]

The article no. The previous comment, definitely.

[longtermmemmory]

There is a 1980's SC case where a similar case was shot down. There was another SC case where a change in environmental regulations to prohibit certain usages was declared a taking.

Taking from private citizens to give to another private citizen based on tax dollars would seem to be in line.

[ChevyZ28]

PING!!!! My grandpa always said before he died,"If you kick the dog enough times, sooner or later he's going to bite you." These judges and municipalities can not continue to just rail road people and think they are continuously going to get away with it. I also predict a very bad incident. I am a Law Enforcement Officer, I can tell you one of the most dangerous things we face is to go to someone's house to remove them either for a domestic violence protective order, or a warrant, or some other legal reason. People are going to protect their homes. A man's home is his castle.

[Nataku X]

A few days back, you wanted proof that eminent domain was being used to give property to private businesses. Here ya go.

[ChevyZ28]

WE lost!!!