Real Story of Eminent Domain
by Shu Bartholomew
"....Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation".
With those twelve words tacked on at the end of the 5th Amendment, the
Founders of this country sought to protect private property from an unjust
taking by the government.
To be sure, the U.S. Supreme court decision in the recent Kelo v. New London
case, has shocked and outraged Americans. But so far public discussion has
focused on whether the takings clause allows condemning private property for
the financial gain of another private entity. While this interpretation is
cause for alarm and deserves public scrutiny, it is only the tip of the
iceberg when it comes to how the power to condemn private property is used -
and abused - by those elected to serve us.
You see, long before the rest of the country heard of this idyllic small New
England town, some of the residents were getting their first taste of the
powers of eminent domain.
After plans to redevelop the Fort Trumbull area were approved by the City of
New London in 1999, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a
quasi-public entity empowered by the city to use the sovereign power of
eminent domain, started acquiring private property, including a neighborhood
of approximately 80 older homes.
In a recent interview on my radio show with two of the remaining homeowners,
Susette Kelo and Michael Cristofaro, I got a tiny glimpse of what the last 5
years have been like. Here is what they told me about their nightmare.
In the beginning representatives from the NLDC showed up on their doorsteps
with contracts in hand, ready to be signed. The homeowners were told to
accept the money they were offered as their homes had been condemned and
they would end up with nothing. Most of the homeowners, many of them in
their 80's and 90's, fearful of being left not only homeless but penniless
as well, signed the contracts and vacated their homes. They moved out of
their neighborhood, and home, for the first time ever.
The homeowners who did not surrender their homes immediately were
threatened, intimidated and harassed. Agents representing the City of New
London called on the phone and banged on their doors at all hours of the day
and night, insisting that they sign the contracts. Bulldozers mowed down
the homes as soon as the NLDC took possession of them, burying personal
objects and mementoes in the rubble they created. They left no physical
traces of the generations of families that once inhabited the area. The
same bulldozers were then parked in front of the remaining homes, as a
menacing reminder of the threat that still hung over them, promising them
that their turn would come. When that tactic failed to produce the desired
results, roads were blocked, denying the residents access to their homes.
It is hard to imagine that the Founders of this country envisioned the
citizens they worked hard to protect would end up being treated by public
servants in this manner. It is equally hard to believe that, in the
unfortunate event that private property would have to be used for a "public
use", that the owners would not be made as whole as possible.
But the provision for "just compensation" has, if possible, been even more
abused than the condemnation itself.
One condemned property was valued at $60,000 (Cristofaro's) by the assessors
hired by the city. This is the same city, which, in 2000, assessed the
property at $215,000 for tax purposes. The rationale being that as the
property is under threat of condemnation, it has no value. "It is
important to note that Christofaro actually offered to give the city his
house in return for one of the yet to be built condos. However, city
officials told him that would be impossible because they didn't yet know how
much the new condos would be worth. The elderly whose family homes were
taken from them in the name of "progress" were left not only homeless, but
penniless, as well. There is nothing "just" about a system that sanctions
stealing private property.
And, to add insult to injury, the city now is demanding rent of $600 a
month, going back 5 years. So much for the mandate for "just compensation".
But I saved the best for last. In the case of New London and their plans
for rebuilding the city, there are no plans for the land 11 houses sit on.
The NLDC does not need the 11 remaining houses in Fort Trumbull to proceed
with the approved plans to redevelop the area. They fought the homeowners,
all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, not because the houses were in their
way but because, as has been reported in the past, the new residents of the
now more upscale neighborhood, "do not want to look at these properties.
On the plus side, if the City of New London, through their henchmen
at the NLDC succeed in demolishing the existing houses and replacing them
with newer, pricier housing, chances are these new, self sustained
neighborhoods will come with a homeowners association. So the next time
New London decides to embark on some neighborhood cleansing program, they
can be assured that the associations, using contract law as their authority,
will rid the city of the "undesirable" citizens. And the city leaders can
face their constituents with clean hands and, if their acting skills are
sharp enough, some feigned empathy.
Shu Bartholomew is the host of "On the Commons," a weekly radio program
based in Fairfax, Virginia, dedicated to exposing the threat of Home Owners'
Associations, and the loss of private property rights they impose. Web site: www.onthecommons.com
Email
the Editor
|
