A New (London) Low (city sues people evicted from own homes for "back rent")

Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.

In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as it was in 2000 .

The hard rains started falling that year, when Matt Dery and his neighbors in Fort Trumbull learned that the city planned to replace their homes with a hotel, a conference center, offices and upscale housing that would complement the adjoining Pfizer Inc. research facility.

The city, citing eminent domain, condemned their homes, told them to move and began leveling surrounding houses. Dery and six of his neighbors fought the takeover, but five years later, on June 23, the downpour of misfortune continued as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city could claim the property for economic development.

Dery owns four buildings on the project site, including his home and the birthplace and lifelong home of his 87-year-old mother, Wilhelmina. Dery plans to make every remaining effort to keep his land, but with few legal options remaining, he's planning for the worst.

And for good reason. It's reasonable to think that people who purchased property years ago (in some cases, decades ago) would be in a position to cash in, especially since they're being forced from their homes. But that's not the case.

The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.

"I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low."

And there are more storms on the horizon. In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents.

In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any money made from tenantssome residents' only form of incomewould also have to be paid to the city.

With language seemingly lifted straight from The Goonies , NLDC's lawyers wrote, "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." They 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.

A lawyer for the residents, Scott Bullock, responded to the letter on July 8, 2004, asserting that the NLDC had agreed to forgo rents as part of a pretrial agreement in which the residents in turn agreed to a hastened trial schedule. Bullock called the NLDC's effort at obtaining back rent "a new low."

"It seems like it is simply a desperate attempt by a nearly broke organization to try to come up with more funds to perpetuate its own existence," Bullock wrote. He vowed to respond to any lawsuit with another.

With the case nearly closed, the NLDC may soon make good on its promise to sue. Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who teaches property law, says it's not clear who might prevail in a legal battle over rent. "From a political standpoint, the city might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," he says.

An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the takeover, a debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case namesake Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house with her husband, learned she would owe in the ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd leave here broke," says Kelo. "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."

Things to note:

1) this is a VERY liberal state. So much for the little guy.
2) the SCOTUS decision was make by the liberal members.
3) the lack of the "usual suspects" protesting this is an indication that it is part and parcel of the liberal mindset.

To that end, I wrote a letter to the ACLU asking why they did not become involved in what is most plainly a case of civil liberties. They sent me a form letter which said the following:

Dear SpinyNorman,

Thank you for contacting the ACLU. The National ACLU did not take a position on the case.

State affiliates of the ACLU handle requests for legal assistance, lobby the state legislatures, and host public forums throughout the year. Your state affiliate is therefore best equipped to handle your concerns.

To find your ACLU affiliate, please visit
http://www.aclu.org/Affiliates/subsitesmain.cfm

Please also consider becoming a member of the ACLU. To join, please visit http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm or call 1-888-567-ACLU.

Sincerely,

D. Barber
Correspondence Manager, American Civil Liberties Union

Need I say more? The organization that will get in the face fo the most absurd issues, such as prayer in schools or elsewhere (formerly protected by the First Amendment) chose "not take a position on the case." To my mind, this means that the Kelo decision is bad for America, bad for Connecticut, and truly screws the poor bastards in New London. And the ACLU could not give a crap.

When you put it all together, it appears that all the liberal groups, including the most activist liberal judges on the court, are in collusion to deprive us of the right to property.

Things to fear: wouldn't charging rent on a property that you are already being grievously taxed on set a precedent for cities to simultaneously tax AND rent the land to you? I see an analogous situation where they suddenly started charging sewer taxes based on your water bill (even if you didn't put the water into the sewer system, i.e. watering the garden).

Why would I not be surprised to see that come down the pike?

"I would hide 5 small bottles of mercury, tell them I hid 8, then watch them go nuts trying to find the other 3 before they could demolish the house."

I thought of the same thing, but instead, I would call the EPA, OSHA and the local eco nutcases before that happened. Add lots of mutated three legged, two headed frogs for good measure. They are easy to make.....

Then again, perhaps salting the area with the latest darling of the eco nutcases not usually found in the area (the big breasted warbling buttmunch?) and scream that this is their nesting site, and you have been watching them for years. That would tie them up in red tape for quite a while.

The Founding Fathers of the USA said it and even predicted it long ago....... They said...When the people of the nation figure out how to use the law to make money, that will be the end of the Union. Love of money the root of all evil. We do it to ourselves and then complain when it backfires on us. We are Americans, lets act like it and stop this ongoing squeezing out every last drop of every opportunity that presents itself to make a buck. At the end of the day, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We've proved our forefathers correct, that is a tragedy in the highest order.

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.