Posted on 08/20/2005 4:01:48 AM PDT by bad company
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45851
Saturday, August 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND City wants back rent from Kelo residents Expects homeowners who lost case to pay hundreds of thousands
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: August 20, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com In the adding insult to injury category, the city officials that triumphed over a group of Connecticut homeowners in a landmark Supreme Court property-rights case are expecting those residents to pay the local government rent dating back to the year 2000.
The June 23 Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London gave the town the approval to seize the residents' homes and transfer them to a private party for development of an office complex. In the highly controversial decision, the justices ruled 5-4 that the economic development resulting from the eminent domain action qualified as "public use" under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The city now says that since it won the case, the homeowners actually have been living on city property since 2000 when it first began condemnation procedures against them, so they must pay back rent – to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
"It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation," wrote Jonathan O'Connell in the Fairfield County Weekly.
Not only is the city demanding rent, but the buyout offers on the table are based on the market rate as it was in 2000, before most of the growth in the current real-estate bubble.
The New London Development Corporation, the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, first addressed the rent issue in a June 2004 letter to residents, calling the alleged debt retroactive "use and occupancy" payments.
"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," the agency said. It 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.
The Kelo case is named after Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house in New London with her husband. Kelo was told she would owe around $57,000 in rent.
"I'd leave here broke," Kelo told the weekly. "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."
Matt Dery owns four houses on the building site, including the home his 87-year-old mother was born in and still lives in. Dery's past-due rent, according to the city, exceeds $300,000.
It remains to be seen if a suit will be filed against the residents.
"From a political standpoint, the city might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who teaches property law, told the paper.
Related stories:
Souter-home seizer to meet with residents
Effort to take Breyer's home moving ahead
Justice Breyer: 'Not all our decisions are right'
Eminent domania comes to the movies
Eminent domania!
Souter-home campaign targets pols
Movement builds to seize Souter home
Souter suitor wants a real hotel company
Supreme Court justice faces boot from home?
Property battle heads to states
High court's property decision stirs anger
Court rules cities can seize homes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't say what I'm thinking. Not on here, at least.
WTF.
And they didn't even need any black helicopters.
This grows more obscene daily.
I'm surprised that some "city employees" haven't been found murdered.
I thought government antics couldn't surprise me anymore. I was wrong.
...Justice Breyer: 'Not all our decisions are right'...
Can't think of the last time he was right.
The city won't let the homeowners take advantage of the increase in their property values so why should they profit by collecting rent.
I wonder if the city thugs have ever heard of Carl Drega?
On the southwest, a judge takes the farm of a taxpayer and transfers the deed to illigal immigrants ( sorry... undocumented workers);
On the east coast, the supreme court take the house of a taxpayer and gives it to a developer.
This used to happen only in third worls countries.
This is just petty and vindictive, and the city officials who are trying to do this need to be taken out horse whipped!
Were the homeowners responsible for keeping up their mortgage payments for the 5 years of trials? If so, they should bill the city for the full amount of mortgage paid and see how they like it. If they were paying for city property then the city should have to reimburse them!
Its called have your cake and eat it too.
Every citizen should be happy to pay thier fair share to Mother Russia. I must have woke up in a parallel universe where we lost the Cold War
I was think:
Rope
Tar
Feathers
Repeat asnecessary.
It still only happens in third world countries.
That's what happens when the communists.... um ... I mean libs have control of people's lives.
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.