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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holy Christ! This is just horrid.
I'm not sure you can demand rent from someone who has not signed and agreed to a lease.
Meanwhile, can someone remind me which corporations are being rewarded for their compassion for the public interest with the titles to these peoples homes? I think those corporations have an opportunity to speak now.
pfizer is the corp that is t aking these homes for thier new corprate offices
Grind the poor to powder. So that is the plan. You need to fight this or we all go down.
Thanks. If WorldNetDaily has this right, Pfizer needs to come forward now.
Essentially it forbids people from developing their land in a certain part of the state, while allowing all the development in the parts of the state where the majority of the elected officials live.
This is no different than TAKING or EMINENT DOMAIN.
The pols decided who shall be able to develop their land and who may not. AFTER the land was bought and paid for under entirely different laws.
"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.
The only 'settlement' should be under the Second Amendment.
It confirms, that "all politics is local -- and they are the worst."
These Kelo city officials really have no clue just how dispicable they are do they?
The only way I can see if the 'city' can charge rent is IF they 'paid' them for the fair market value at the time of the condemnation, and paid the homeowners interest on the money if they never actually gave it to them.
"I can't say what I'm thinking, not on here at least"
I am in total agreement.
Bastards.
"Carl Drega"
Who?
My father would go down shooting before some beaurocrat took his house.
Can't wait to hear what the Israeli's say when Hamas sends them a bill"
How DOES one say F$*K off in hebrew?
tar & feathers.
Ping
Commentary, articles on the kelo case:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm
When I heard about the Kelo decision, I said to a friend that eventually, someone's going to die because of this decision... Hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt that it will.
Mark
I suggest that the city owes back interest in at least the same amounts due for back rent. Unless the owners have already received the money from the city for their property. Then they might be screwed.
Rotten b*st*rds. Is it still too early to shoot 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.