Posted on 09/16/2015 5:08:07 PM PDT by MarchonDC09122009
Ironic that Connecticut is / was known as "The Constitution State". Founders spinning in their grave...
This is akin to making a good investment in the stock market and having the government knock on your day to take it because somebody else can make better use of the gain.
Very good analogy.
IIRC, a prominent GOP Candidate for POTUS supports the Kelo decision.
I’m waiting for the Trump supporters to come in here and defend this.
The one, effective way of fighting back was done elsewhere, and it takes a lot of work. That is, property owners band together and create an *alternative* plan that spares their property.
In effect, they create a Homeowner’s Association, which has a greater level of recognition by the courts, as a pseudo-government organization.
In practice, the strategy is of displacement of the developers plan, either moving it away from their property, or changing its declination (North-South-East-West) so that it doesn’t involve their property.
“Instead of putting a parking garage here, move it over there to take some unused area. Then rotate the entire project 20 degrees to the South, and everybody is happy.”
Note that the Founding States had originally decided that the personal privileges and immunities that the states had amended the Constitution to expressly protect, most of these protections listed in the Bill of Rights, did not apply to the states. In fact, the justices who had clarified the state eminent domain case of Barron v. Baltimore had clarified that, unless the states were specified, general prohibitions on government power in the Constitution applied only to the federal government, not to the states. “
The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States.”
…
We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. ” —Barron v. Baltimore, 1833.
So before the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified, the states arguably didn’t need an excuse to seize land.
It wasn’t until the states ratified the 14A (that amendment ratified under very questionable conditions (imo) that the states required themselves to respect the Constitutiion’s personal privileges and immunities as well.
BUT THERE’S A CATCH !!!
The congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th Amendment took away no state’s rights.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
“No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State [emphasis added]? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
In other words, rights expressed in the Constitution as a prohibition of power on the feds, such as 1st Amendment prohibitions on certain powers of Congress to make laws, did not get applied to the states.
So let’s get back to prohibitions on government power versus constitutionally express rights in the context of the 5th Amendment’s imminent domain protections since that is a two-pronged right expressed in terms of a prohibition on government power as well as an express personal right.
"Under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, the government can exercise its eminent domain power to take property from private residents if it satisfies two conditions: it’s for public use, and just compensation [emphases added] is provided."
While the 14th Amendment applied the “just compensation” aspect of the eminent domain clause to the states, as evidenced by Bingham’s clarification concerning states’s rights, that amendment did not apply the “public use" aspect of the eminent domain clause to the states imo.
This is why the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kelo v. New London was the constitutionally correct interpretation of the 5th Amendment in conjunction with the 14th Amendment where state power issues are concerned imo.
It remains that since the low-information citizens probably understand the Constitution based on the gossip and hearsay that they are fed that, until citizens work with their local and state government representatives to make state eminent domain laws that are more friendly to homeowners, the eminent domain aspect of the 5th Amendment is probably going to continue to be a “loose canon” for many citizens.
Very informative explanation of Kelo legal precedent history, current gap, and thanks for the alternate plan homeowners association strategy!
There’s a huge group of houses in New Canaan that,if torn down by the state,would make a great nature reserve.
Ah, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander!
Include Greenwich CT for Redevelopment Emminent domain too ;n)
“In 2005, a pregnant Rodriguez; her husband, Fernando; and their young son decided to leave New York for West Haven ...”
Bad choice leaving purgatory for hell!
Saw Bill Buckley, a longtime CT resident, explain why CT (the land of steady habits) hardly saw political change, and was a one party ruled state.
Bill opinied “I’ve concluded the reason Connecticut always reelects its democrat incumbents, is because the state is politically retarded”.
He brought the house down!
That’s funny!
The Kelo decision was easily as bad as Roe or Dred Scott. In Kelo the SCOTUS basically said the government can give your property to anybody capable of paying more taxes than you can.
Rather than steal the homeowner’s property (which is what they’re doing if the homeowner refuses to sell), why not offer the homeowner the opportunity to be a partner in the development? The homeowner continues to own that portion of the land their home was on, leases it to whoever owns the development, and shares in profits generated by the development. For being displaced, the homeowner is given another nearby property to live in, while profiting from the development that would pay all property taxes. That would be fair.
Why would they put it in West Haven? They already bulldozed an neighborhood in New London for development following the Kelo v. New London decision in 2005. That neighborhood is still completely barren.
RE: “Why would they put it in West Haven?”
#1 Rule in Real Estate:
Location, location, location.
The West Haven location serves more New Haven, Orange, Milford, etc, whose demographics are far better than sh1t hole New London.
That is why the Kelo property has been abandoned to this day.
Pfizer and other companies realize that Connecticut is an economic Chernobyl zone, and moved to greener pastures.
Current plight and disastrous glide path couldn’t happen to a more deserving state.
I hope every decent person within 50 miles of this "high-end mall" will boycott it if it is built, and warn the developer before the land is taken. Otherwise, we need another barren monument to the concept that decent people do not approve of crony capitalist theft of homes. If the developers want to build there, they need to offer enough that the homeowners are happy to sell, not just threaten to take the land by force.
RE: “That would be fair.”
You are a good and just person to offer that solution.
However, stating the obvious, developers and the state are not interested in setting dangerous precedent by being fair.
Having studied the Kelo case in Grad Business Law, we discovered that the state of CT forms a quasi private public corporation to “manage” the property development.
And officials within that entity, selfless paragons of virtue that they are, receive “compensation” for all their hardwork. It would be terribly unfair to give a property owner more than market value, since doing so might well reduce our official’s take, er ah, I mean compensation.
CT is more corrupt than RI.
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.