Eminent domain victim sends her worst wishes

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | December 21, 2006 | A.P.

[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."

[sauropod]

I was referring to the original Kelo decision by SCOTUS, not to whatever compensation Ms. Kelo received.

[Tokra]

Now start calculating how much it will cost you to buy land, get a house re-settled (and probably fixed), move all your other stuff, how much you lost from 1 piece of land to the next, get all your documentation changed, etc etc etc.

I'm fairly certain that $442,000 would more than cover that.

[ArrogantBustard]

What has that to do with American courts failing to respect property rights in the USA?

We know the rest of the world sucks ... that's why we're here. This doesn't nean that the USA shouldn't live up to its promise, or that American courts are excused from obeying the Constitution for the United States.

[Dead Corpse]

Of course, the difference between you and Kelo, is that you WANT to sell. She didn't. This is called self ownership, or freedom. It was once what this country was all about.

Thanks to sheep going along blindly with whatever nonsense their Masters come up with, it ain't that way any longer.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Probably not.

[Clara Lou]

She had no choice but to take the money. If she refused it, they'd still have evicted her. It wasn't like she had any choice at all.

[brwnsuga]

I chose my house because of its location. What if she had a beautiful view? What if she and her husband were married in that house or all her children's memories were in that house. It is a hard thing to give up something that has so many precious memories, no matter the amount of money.

[twonie]

Anyway, I'm glad she got the money, but you got to know when to quit. A man's got to know his limitations.

[Almondjoy]

You must live by the philosophy that "money means everything".

Good for you.

[NorthFlaRebel]

Is the appraised value mentioned here after they condemned the property or the actual market value in 2000?

Hi, I'm a Real Estate Appraiser/Consultant in North Florida. I have lurked on FR for years, posted from time to time in the past. I just wanted to chime in here and give a little insight from my experiences.

I do a wide variety of work, and have done appraisal work in eminent domain cases for numerous counties and municipalities in North Florida. Let me be the first to say I do not agree with the use of ED in most cases for public use, and certainly do not agree with it for private use. I just want to be clear that I do not support ED, just that I have done work in the area.

Now, to the question. In Florida, for a government agency to use ED, they have to go to a hearing and prove neccessity. If the judge agrees, an order of eminent domain is granted. The value of the property is to be established as of the order of taking. This situation in New London is unique as we do not have that type of eminent domain here in Florida. That case took six years, and her property is certainly worth more now than it was in 2000.

As to "appraised value" or "market value". I have no idea what this figure is they have quoted. It could be anything from what the property was assessed for in 2000, to what the independent appraiser estimated its value was. A misnomer in this is that "the government" appraises your property. That is completely untrue. This work is bid out to appraisers, most of which have a professional designation. These people are not in the pocket of government 99% of the time. Every governmental agency that I have worked for has always said, "Give the property owner the benefit of the doubt". They do not want to go to court. Juries are very sympathetic to people who's homes, land or businesses are being taken against their will.

Now, given all of the "horror stories" people have heard about eminent domain, I don't expect many to believe what I am about to say. More time than not, the municipality is paying more than actual market value and the tax payers are the ones getting "screwed". Once again, I have no idea of how things work in New London, CT. and what the value was based upon. I suspect the value was established back in 2000. This went in front of a jury(note that eminent domain juries are the only jury other than a murder charge where there are 12) and juries - not the judge, not the government - determines compensation. Most likely, the jury decided to give her $442,155 because they were sympathetic and thats probably what her attorney and appraiser said the lot was worth "today", or in the recent past.

Now, there are numerous ways her property could have been unethically valued, to "low ball" her, but that is unlikely. Someone brought up the fact that she gets to keep the house. Well, she probably has to pay to move it, or that $445,155 figure incldued compensation for having it moved(very likely, no competent attorney would have not pushed for that). Given that this property had demand for re-development(I assume, given the developers plan), then one could argue that her lot possesses a "pro rata share" of the total value of the land which this developer is acquiring. That's probably how I would value it given the facts and information about the case that I have. The other method is simply based upon what the lot in and of itself is worth. Appraisal is based upon the concept of "Highest and Best Use", and while I don't have time to fully explain the concept, it implies that property is valued in a manner which results in the highest return. Let me give a quick example:

Say you own a 1,500 SF house on a 1/2 acre lot on a major roadway. Say in your area, similar 1,500 SF houses on 1/2 acre lots sell for $200,000. However, given that lots location on a main road, it probably has commercial use potential(and may even currently be zoned as such). So looking at recent sales of similar 1/2 acre commercial lots on busy roadways, I find that it should be worth $500K to $600K. Say demolition costs are $10K. As an appraiser, I don't say the house is worth $200,000, because continued use of the property as a residence when the underlying land is worth almost three times what the entire property as a residence is worth is not the Highest and Best Use. This is how this lady's property would have been valued.

One last note about eminent domain. You as the property owner have the legal right in every State to have another appraiser appraise your property. 99.99% of people who enter eminent domain proceedings do. This lady most likely did. The jury listens to both sides, and then determines compensnation. Juries typically do not understand appraisal practice or concept, are distrusting of government taking land and almost always side with the highest number, or at least in the middle.

Hope that clears some things up. I probably wont have time to respond today if anyone has another question, but I'll try to get back to you tomorrow or after Christmas.

[dljordan]

May his pig never grunt, may his cat never hunt,
May a ghost always haunt him in the dead of the night,
May his hen never lay, may his ass never bray,
May his coat fly away like an old paper kite;
May the lice and the fleas the wretch ever tease,
May the pinching north breeze make him tremble and shake,
May a four-year-old bug build a nest in the Iug,
Of the monster that murdered Nell Flaherty's Drake.
May his cock never crow, may his bellows ne'er blow,
And a-pot or po, may he never have one,
May his cradle not rock, may his box have no lock,
May his wife have no smock to shield her back bone,
May his duck never quack, and his goose turn quite black
And pull down the turf with his long yellow beak.
May scurvy and itch, not depart from the breech,
Of the monster that murdered Nell Flaherty's Drake.

[bannie]

"It's amazing anyone could be so vindictive when they've made so much money,"

They don't get it.

I'm sorry that the poor lady felt the need to apologize.

[rlmorel]

It is all about property rights and choice, Alberta's Child.

Everything else is irrelevant.

It would have been one thing if they needed it to build something that is related to a public safety issue.

But to have a private company come in and take what is yours away against your choice (even if they attempt to compensate you for it) just so they can increase the tax base of the locality is just, plain wrong.

If people in other countries want to do that, power to them and sympathies to the people who live there. But this is against everything America stands for.

The Kelo Decision is a crime. An absolute crime.

[PeterFinn]

None of us own anything when the government can take everything. Hell, this all just makes the USA the USSR with a better economy.

[PeterFinn]

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."

It would not have been a card I would've sent this turd at 2300fps. Nothing personal, of course.

[PeterFinn]

I agree with you in one sense, but it's hardly "confiscation" when she's getting paid nearly 400% of the appraised value of her property.

What part of her property don't you understand?

[Centurion2000]

"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.

You stole her house at gunpoint under color of law you b@#$% !

[Centurion2000]

I know someone who could use a "Ultimate Revenge BLack Curse".

But is it worth paying 33.00 for a charlatan to do it for you?

[tioga]

She is entitled to make her own decisions about selling her land. Forced sales no matter the price is taking something from her she does not wish to sell. What the courts have done is wrong.

[tioga]

Too bad she apologized. She should have stood her ground. I would never do that, but she is miserable this Christmas and they should be reminded of that.