High Court Ruling Divides New London (The People Behind the Lawsuit)

Newsday.com ^ | June 23, 2005 | Matt Apuzzo (AP)

[andie74]

NEW LONDON, Conn. -- On Bill Von Winkle's side of town, word of the Supreme Court decision spread like the news of a passing relative. His cell phone rang incessantly.

"Hello," he answered. "Yeah, we lost. I know, hard to believe, huh?"

No sooner had he hung up the phone than his letter carrier walked by.

"Need a hug?" he asked.

Von Winkle is one of seven homeowners who learned Thursday that the city's plan to demolish their working class neighborhood in the name of economic development is constitutional.

On the other side of town, city leaders cheered the decision, calling it a victory for cash-strapped cities that want to spur redevelopment. The holdouts and their 15 homes were all that stood in the way of plans to build a hotel, office space and upscale homes.

"This case makes New London look good and you should be proud to live in New London," said the city's attorney, Wesley Horton, who argued the case before the high court.

Like New London, the high court was divided on the issue. Five justices sided with the city, saying economic revitalization qualifies as a public good and local officials know best when to use their eminent domain power for the community's benefit.

Four justices, led by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said the decision opened the doors for wealthy to developers to drive poor residents out of their homes.

"The U.S. Supreme Court destroyed everybody's lives today, everybody who owns a home," said Richard Beyer, who owns two rental properties in the once vibrant immigrant neighborhood that has largely been reduced to swaths of rutted grass. "This was America."

[SoDak]

I totally disagree. That would be in direct violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment barring the government from interfering in the right of religious expression. If a church isn't supported, it closes. If it exists it means that it's serving a community of parishioners. Also, the money that goes into churches has already been taxed. It's the net income of it's parishioners after paying federal, state and local taxes. Your acquaintance knew, or dang well should have known the risks of basing a career in the church.

[andie74]

I am hearing you, Son.

Considering that the SCOTUS is not above using European case law and UN statutes to interpret the US Constitution, I think that we know exactly where the hearts of these men and woman lie.

[OhioLen]

Honestly, I think most of it is a matter of which writing style I prefer. Generally, I find Thomas' writing to be less persuasive due to the way he writes, not necessarily the points he may raise in any given opinion. Instead of "questionable," I should have used the word "tedious." ;)

I can't change it here or on DKos, but I will certainly make that change on my own site. Thanks for the comment.

Either way, the majority is dead wrong on this issue.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The Court has cut a faustian deal with developers to keep inflating the real estate bubble

Only the commercial real estate will be worth anything as big investors sell these to each other and charge confiscatory rents from leaseholders. Moderate residential urban property on the other hand will have no market.

Prices will drop because developers will no longer need to compete in the open market for it. And no one will want to buy to live in houses whose condemnation is only a matter of time. I believe that over the next few years urban single residential property will drop to values comparable to rural acreage with the current residents driven to abandonment by property taxes, which won't drop, and eventually the bulldozer. It ensures that individual home owners will never again profit from location and surrounding development which will drive prices down rather than up.

[microgood]

Along with Jan. 22, 1972; May 18, 1896; March 6, 1857; Feb. 24, 1803...

(Roe, Plessy, Dred Scot, Marbury...)

Thanks for those dates. Adding to the list of horrible rulings by SCOTUS

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

This is called "Fascism".

This word is thrown about for everything the Left disagrees with. But this is actually the dictionary definition when government and big business combine to deprive individuals of all rights.

[jeffers]

This simply cannot be allowed to stand.

If it takes armed insurrection to overturn this travesty, then count me in.

I'm not ready to start shooting today, but these people must not be turned out of their homes, no matter what the cost.

Is Pfizer the developer in this case?

Is there an FR action already in progess in this matter?

I'm not willing to stand by and let this happen.

Who else is ready to stand up for our rights?

[BigSkyFreeper]

There is a lot of irony in this decision -- the liberal side of the Court sided with the city to move out blue class workers to build an upscale neighborhood. I think the RATs are ONLY up in arms because it affects their constituents. If it was a suburb of Republicans, they would be cheering this decision.

It's the ONLY reason the Liberals are upset. You are absolutely right. If this had happend in some metro area of some red state, you can bet the Liberals would be loudly cheering the USSC decision. The Liberals will still however manage to blame Wal-Mart, Enron, and Halliburton.

[little jeremiah]

I used the word purposefully.

It is, indeed, classic fascism.

I am sickened by the 5 Nazgul. Their lying words are the poison breath.

[Checkers]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1574059&mesg_id=1574059

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1575546&mesg_id=1575546

DU, of all places, doesn't like the ruling.

[de Buillion]

I believe that this ruling by scotus will be the most controversial in history. I cannot even envision the repercussions of this , but I believe that it will not stand.

[andie74]

We'll just have to see how our system of checks and balances works here within the next few days...and we'll keep the pressure up!

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I know. And I was thinking about a way to make the very point when I found your post.

[de Buillion]

First: I really don't know if my acquaintance was or was not aware of the unemployment benefits when he accepted the job- But he was not a preacher, he was an accountant. Why would he have known? All that I am saying is that there should be limits, zoning or whatever, to the total number of churches in a city. Churches "subtract" money from a community, and, yes, SOMETIMES they contribute to the community- however, many times, that money goes to Ethiopia, or Sri Lanka, or Rome. And they occupy land which would otherwise be taxed. And please do not disregard the fact that many churches compete, UNFAIRLY, with legitamate businesses who do pay taxes, in commercial enterprises. That practice should be totally OUTLAWED!

And I would like to add- overall, I am on the side of Religion in the US, it serves a very valuable and beneficial purpose, and I am not condemning religious institutions.

[MarMema]

ping to 14

[nutmeg]

"I spent all the money I had to buy these properties," said Von Winkle, a former deli owner who lives in the neighborhood and owns two other rental homes. "They were not inherited. They were not a gift. I sold sandwiches to buy these properties. It took 21 years."

Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

[SoDak]

I couldn't disagree more. Thats life.

[Windcatcher]

"It's bad enough that they take away their homes to build an office building and a hotel, but private homes? That's appalling."

This is something that bears pointing out. It's only a matter of time before communities across this country start condeming all those "small" 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000-square foot homes (you know, the kind that just about everybody lives in) to make way for lavish 3,000+ -square-foot mansions that sell for double the price and bring in double the taxes...and of course the evicted people will have to move somewhere else because they can't afford to live there anymore.

It will happen. Just watch.

[andie74]

Wow...you mean only the upper echelons will own homes?

Kind of like Europe, eh?

[Skywalk]

"This shyster and others will pay the price one day for their lack of vision."