Posted on 12/21/2006 8:42:35 AM PST by Graybeard58
NEW LONDON -- The woman at the center of a national battle over property rights has sent some not-so-joyous tidings to people involved in taking her house to make way for private development.
Susette Kelo's holiday cards feature a snowy image of her pink house and a message that reads, in part, "Your houses, your homes, your family, your friends. May they live in misery that never ends. I curse you all. May you rot in hell. To each of you I send this spell."
The cards were conceived and produced by a friend of Kelo's and sent to city officials and members of New London's development agency.
Kelo said she also considered sending the cards to five U.S. Supreme Court justices who ruled in June 2005 that New London had the right to take homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to make way for a riverfront project slated to include condominiums, a hotel and office space.
On Wednesday, after news accounts carried details about the cards, Kelo apologized in a statement released by the Institute for Justice, which represented the homeowners in their legal battle.
"My card was meant as much in humor as it was in frustration," she said in the statement. "What I wrote shouldn't be taken as my literal wish for anyone. I'm heartbroken that this will be my last Christmas in Fort Trumbull and what I wrote rose out of that fact, but the bottom line is, it was over the top."
Kelo, one of the last holdouts, earlier this year accepted a $442,155 settlement, more than $300,000 above the appraised value of her home in 2000. Her pink cottage will be moved elsewhere in the city. She has until June 15 to move.
"It's amazing anyone could be so vindictive when they've made so much money," said Gail Schwenker-Mayer, a supporter of the development project who received one of the cards.
New London Development Corp. member Reid Burdick said he put the card on his mantel with his other Christmas greetings.
"I think the poor woman has gone around the bend," he said. "I haven't gotten any mail from her in years. I still feel bad for Susette. The sorry part of this is that the things she's angry about were not done to be mean-spirited toward her personally."
Fellow NLDC member George Milne, a former top executive at Pfizer Inc., called the card "immensely childish."
"It's sort of sad she elected to do this," Milne said. "We were trying to do things for the city. It was nothing personal."
Kelo, a nurse who handles lead paint and lead poisoning cases for the city of New London, said the card was her idea.
"This all could have been solved and ended many years ago," she said. "They didn't have to do what they did to us, and I will never forget. These people can think what they want of me. I will never, ever forget what they did."
Funny, she never mentions this obscene amount of money in all her ravings. I'm just saying....
Been there, done that, landlord didn't even give me a T-shirt. Just 30 day's notice.
You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between an "owner" and a "tenant". Having been both, I thoroughly understand the difference.
What if you drive a $30,000 car and I decide that I'd like to buy it from you. I appraise the car at $2500 but to show what a nice guy I am I'll pay you $8000 for it. If you aren't willing to take the $8000, should the government be able to force you to sell it to me for that price? After all, it's over three times the appraised value of the car.
Sometimes it is private. If it's the parking lot and there is a collision between private cars, it is quasi-public. If it is somebody on the property, restaurant or store, to buy something it is quasi-public. This is not at all clear. The corporation exists by the Constitutional authority of the FedGov, and may be owned, which is hardly the description of a private person.
If she were being moved for a freeway, power lines, canals, or a new city hall then none of us would be saying it's unconstitutional. It might not be nice, but it is allowed for in the Constitution.
We have a problem in that eminent domain was invoked not for public use, but to hand over to a private developer. It used to be that crooked developers had to send guys over with baseball bats or turn off the heat and electricity to evict the old ladies from their apartments. Now they just use the city to do it.
"i wonder how some of these political clowns would feel if it was their home that was condemned for the same reason? "
And vastly undervalued..
"Curses notwithstanding, I have a feeling that the developer had better get some damned good fire insurance"
The developer has little blame here. it is the politicians that the developer bought that are responsible.
It doesn't matter whether it's Joe's General Store (a sole propritorship) or Walmart (a corporation). Either one is a private entity as opposed to a state entity. Neither should be able to take the property of the other by way of state confiscation.
Notwithstanding who issues a corporte charter, it is more than clear to me that the constitutional purpose of eminent domain is not to allow property seizures to support corporate enterprise.
And that is the issue. There is little incentive to offer a true market value if you can go to court and get it by gun point.
I have no problem removing renters if the owner wishes to. The renters' contract will specify what will happen in this case. As long as he didn't break the contract, more capitalist blessings to him.
Why should the developer negotiate when it has the State willing to seize property on their behalf?
It's not an 'entity'. It is a legal person. It is, however a creation of the state and that makes it a public person. The state has not gone so far as to declare every natural creature property of the state this time, but watch: National Health Care will just about complete the trick.
But what if they only SAID your house was worth $140K because they intended to steal it for that?
Do it to me, and I'll load the land with so much cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium that the property will be unusable for a thousand years...Without a house, I'd be judgement proof. So Sue Me.
Ooops, had a little spill in the Hobby Shop. :-)
I'd want the CHOICE to sell. And would have an independent appraisal done. Reading the article more throughly it appears she was taken for a ride even if she HAD been offered a choice.
I would just set their houses on fire instead.
I don't know, but someday they're going to f$%k with the wrong person and their houses will get burned down with them inside. And I will fell no remorse for them whatsoever.
If the government forced you to sell your Microsoft stock in 1995, at three times its 1990 market value (when it first filed its lawsuit to force you to sell), how would you feel today? (In 1990, MSFT's stock price - split-adjusted - was 0.85. In 1995, it was about $6). Eminent domain for commercial development purposes is simply a way for the government to gang up with private developers to steal money from homeowners.
The weird thing is that folks here are like sheep about eminent domain. In China, they fought pitched battles with armed police and paramilitary troops armed with automatic rifles. Whatever the Kelo decision said, you can be sure that Uncle Sam would furiously backpedal after a few armed confrontations involving body counts.
Those who believe that are in the minority and losing ground every day. That doesn't mean their understanding isn't superior, it's just that they are being outshouted by the mob and will eventually have to flee.
I'm not sure I'd agree that we're in the minority. In fact I believe the GOP missed a great opportunity to exploit the issue during this election cycle. Having your property taken from you by force is an easy issue to relate to and explain to voters.
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.