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."
That was a 2000 appraisal. What would the value of it be now, I wonder?
Yep. Back in 1995, IIRC, there was another incident in New Hampshire. Although it wasn't an eminent domain matter, it was a clash between local government and property owner over a piece of land. Google "Carl Drega".
man, you missed the point on this whole thing, huh? It ain't about the money! The fact that this woman is being forcibly removed from her home by the gov't for other private concerns has completely eluded you.
And whining? Again, she was forcibly removed from her home because she refused to sell it. You see nothing wrong with the entire premise of this whole situation? This case set a precedent on the role of property rights (RIP) in this country. Please tell me you accidentally left off the sarcasm tag.
I'm not very attached to my home, so I'd definitely take it if the offer makes me a decent profit plus a little extra to cover the trouble of moving. But that's just me.
A corporation is not necessarily an institution of the state. In fact, sounds like the corporation used the state to get it's way.
Why should the developers bother giving her a cut when they can just force her off her land for a one-time payment of relative chump change? However, you would have a good idea there in a country where eminent domain isn't abused.
It's right on the water, near where they build the subs at electric boat. It's choice property.
She should have been compensated with a percentage of the recurring annual profit derived from the developement. Then she would remain an owner. And a damn wealthy one at that!
Nowhere in the Constitution is there established where or how private property comes to be. Amend 4 and 5 imply it exists already in a roundabout way. The Eighth Commandment implies it. But, few are aware of these things anyway.
In a perfect world, that would be nice.
Unfortunately, we live in America, where private property rights are a dim memory.
"It's amazing anyone could be so vindictive when they've made so much money,"
SHE DIDN'T WANT TO *MOVE*!
It's good she got "just compensation", but it STILL doesn't make it right that she and others were FORCED OUT.
She still has (natural, and Constitutional) right of refusal!
(Yes, her card was a bit ridiculous, but I still sympathize with the woman because she was still wronged.)
I'm bitter, and I didn't even have my house taken.
The American Corporation exists by right of the 14th Amendment of the 1787 Federal Constitution. Everything in the Constitution is an institution of the state, including FedGov itself, but there are many other institutions of the state existing extraconstitutionally.
I don't think you understand the was offered the ~122,000 back in 2000. The only reason she got ~422,000 in 2005-6 was because the appraised value of the land had gone up. The time the property was tied up in the courts is the reason the land rose in value. IIRC the land development board went back to court after she lost at the SCOTUS to try to pay her the original $122,000, and just as an aside I bet the original $122,000 was low to begin with.
That would have been smart and she might well have been able to get such a deal. We just had a similar situation right here in Fairbanks (the last bastion of Conservatism in the world), and much of what happened and was said might have been read off the same script.
"Fellow NLDC member George Milne, a former top executive at Pfizer Inc., called the card "immensely childish.""
CHILDISH? Who's childish?
The absurdity of an elite government-type (backed by FORCE as gov's are) to talk about a silly card when he and his cronies care nothing about the NATURAL RIGHTS of these people to stay where they are!
"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."
"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.""
What DUH! We don't care if it's personal or NOT. The point is you government-force we-can-do-what-we-want took what belongs to her and her neighbors, by force. In fact, the irony is EXACTLY that it's not personal. You just try to make the people nameless blobs and thus you don't have to worry about feeling bad for them.
OK, I do not know all the particulars. I just know that a private entity used the government to further it's own goals.
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.