Posted on 06/06/2006 10:27:42 AM PDT by lilylangtree
NEW LONDON, Conn.--City officials voted Monday night to evict residents who refused to leave their riverfront homes, signaling that the end may be near in an eminent domain dispute that reached the U.S. Supreme Court last year.
The City Council approved the action 5-2. The city attorney will now go to court to seek removal of the remaining two families and obtain the properties in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, a process that could take three months.
A lawyer for the families said they are considering continuing their battle.
The city has been trying for a decade to redevelop the once-vibrant neighborhood at the point where the Thames River joins the sea. Seven homehowners challenged the city's plans to seize the property and build a hotel, convention center and upscale condominiums, saying eminent domain can't be used to make way for private development.
But the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last year to uphold the city's right to take the homes, saying municipalities have broad power to do so in favor of private development to generate tax revenue.
Since then, five of the homeowners have settled with the city and agreed to leave.
The vote came five days after a settlement deadline. One resident agreed to a settlement just minutes before Monday's meeting began, The Day of New London reported.
The holdouts will consider asking the state to pull funding for the development, said Scott Bullock, a laywer for the residents.
Reminds me of the this blurb "Big Brother is Watching"
http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927
Why am I expecting violence resulting from this story?
Can't speak for these folks, but I do believe I'd be dusting off the old rifle and brushing up on my skills if it came to that. Of course where I'm at, nobody would want to develop hotels anyway.
Unacceptable. I can think of a number of things that should be done if these folks are actually evicted. None of them can be printed.
> I can think of a number of things that should be done if these folks are actually evicted.
Well, how about this for synergy... within the last few days there were stories of environmentalists tryign to declare farms with animal poop on them as "superfund" cleanup sites. If the homeowners get evicted, and the war is basically lost... salt the earth there with pig poop, and then the developers will have a superfund site to deal with. Hell, start farming pigs there *now*.
Instead of a "scorched earth" policy (which would please the devlopers just fine... save them some bother regarding knocking the houses down), institute a "pooped earth" policy.
What a sh*tty idea.
Mind you, if **I** was one of the affected families, I'd be stocking the house with things like transformer oil, etc.
And a timer. City takes posession, several hours later, the house catches fire, and the resultant toxics make the site unsuitable for development without hundreds of millions in environmental cleanup. . .
That was kelo v. new london. The decision applied only to that case. This would be a new case and a judge could, instead of letting the decision stand (stare decisis), not let it stand and rule to the contrary, correcting the mistake.
And that nonsense about broad power to blah blah blah, where did that power come from? I thought this was a Republic where the will of the people is expressed through their elected representatives. The municipality has no powers that the people don't delegate to it. Instead it is becoming more of an authoritarian state where the will of the tyrant is expressed through the judges, and I just see the people bending over and accepting it.
I'm still waiting for one of these homeowners with properties in jeopardy to go postal on some city officials or their agent enforcers, and I don't mean sending letter.
Only downside to either plan being that these folks chose to live on the river probably because they love the place. It'd be hard to contaminate that which you love.
When Joe Sixpack owns property that appreciates in value, it is called standing in the way of progress.
Yet we cannot, according to the government , evict/deport/ send back the 12 million ILLEGALS that pour over our borders. Why because it is not the right thing to do--these people are hard working and are only trying to provide for their families!
Where is the justice? It no longer exists for the ordinary tax paying citizen.
That's what you get for living in Connecticut you dumb goobers.
I notice none of the addresses belong to a city councilman.
If the houses are taken nothing will happen. We will all continue to be good little Americans who have just accepted another fisting from our government. I would be highly surprised if any real resistance against this is made.
It's the same thing with the "from my cold dead hands" folks. Scores of people who have talked big with that line have had their guns taken away from the by the gubmint, and nothing happened.
New london is the only one that makes the news - In new haven they are taking 12 waterfront homes- In derby Ct. a deveoper picked up several blocks downtown on the river - Ridgefield The town is taking a couple of hundred acres
Abuses are not being held in check and the politicians greed Knows no bounds.
Welcome to the Socialists utopia
I don't live in CT. However, kicking people off their land so that the govt can step in and sell it to the highest bidder to bring in more revenue for the govt coffers is not right. What's the difference between this immoral and unjust action and having a king with absolute power, which is one of the reasons America is a republic and not a monarchy? This action in CT goes against everything that America was created for.
Take a look at buying a pizza in the future by seeing this. Don't forget to turn up the sound:
http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927
> It'd be hard to contaminate that which you love.
History suggests otherwise... people are *forever* blowing stuff up, burning stuff down, to keep The Other Guy from getting it.
And in this case... it's *pig* *poop*. The Gubmint might decide it's a horrible environmental disaster, but it's really not. It's fertilizer.
Not a bad idea! Why not put some kind of endangered species on the properties and the EPA will swoop in and prevent ANY agency or developer from setting foot on that land.
I notice that neither the city nor the developer is offering these families one of the 'upscale condominiums'.
Because this is precisely why the framers included the right to bear arms.
The Kelo decision is government for the government, not government for the people.
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.