City wants back rent from Kelo residents

world net daily ^ | August 20, 2005

[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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mini-14]

No

[Mini-14]

No

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I was reading in our local paper this morning that one of our local "leaders" wants to be re-elected in order to "re-vitalize" the downtown area. What she really means is she wants to run the old mom-and-pop businesses out (they've already done that with some of them) and move her financial friends in. Greed knows know bounds. Greed seems to be our countrys greatest product.

Might I suggest you take a page from their book, dig up as much dirt on her as you can, and air it in public? I know that's a low, sleazy tactic, but I'm hopping mad right now!

[ellery]

BTTTTT

[Allosaurs_r_us]

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!

I'll bet money that all of these people paid their property taxes during this period! If so, the city by accepting the tax money, obviously agrreed the property was not theirs and don't have any claim. If they refused the tax revenue, then perhaps they would have a leg to stand on, but I doubt these money grubbing weasels ever turned down a dollar for the city coffers.

This might have to go back to court. Maybe they will get a second chance and this wrong can be righted. I won't hold my breath though. 

[philetus]

I don't believe voting does any good any way.

No matter who you vote in, they ultimately turn into carpetbaggers.

The only good politicians are the ones who became disgusted with the putrid political process and dropped out.

Politics becomes more diseased as the years pass and, so far, no one, no group, no org. has stopped the slide of the United States towards becoming a nation-state of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!!

[tomakaze]

re:I wonder if the city thugs have ever heard of Carl Drega?
for the curious:
Wikipedia entry for Carl Drega
and
The Ballad of Carl Drega (on amazon)

[tomakaze]

one more
How Many More Carl Dregas?

[trubluolyguy]

It would appear that Mr. Drega was driven to the limits of his sanity by these beurocrats.

[RobRoy]

>>I can't say what I'm thinking. Not on here, at least.<<

That makes two of us. Then again, maybe we could share a cell...

[RobRoy]

>>I can't say what I'm thinking. Not on here, at least.<<

They said it in the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.,

If not now, when?

[RobRoy]

>>Rotten b*st*rds. Is it still too early to shoot them?<<

That's your call. One thing's for sure, they're quickly running out of time with me...

I know they eventually ran out of time with our forefathers as well.

[Rifleman]

Carl Drega, see:

http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle1999/libe57-19991015-01.html

[Chewbacca]

'I'm not sure you can demand rent from someone who has not signed and agreed to a lease.'


That is a true statement there. If the city claims to be the landlord then they also have the liability to fix the homes that they claimed to own and mow the yards.

Personally I would sell the property to the State, but demand payment be made in gold and silver coin like it states in the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10.

"No State shall make anything but gold and silver COIN a payment of debt."

[skr]

Now we know where the Sheriff of Nottingham's descendants work.

[Cool Multiservice Soldier]

I'm in total agreement with you. This action is beyond description.

[onef]

ping

[the anti-liberal]

If not now, when?

Unfortunately, we're all too busy earning a living and paying our taxes- we can't afford to take the time off work to do anything substantial and meaningful.

[RobRoy]

Comfortably numb?