Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

On Friday, September 16, 2005, I participated in a Forum sponsored by The Federalist Society at the State Capital. The four participants were myself, Attorney Wesley Horton of Hartford, who represented New London in the landmark Kelo v. New London case, Attorney Dana Berliner of the Institute for Justice, which represented the Fort Trumbull property owners in the case, and Attorney John Rose Jr., corporation counsel for the City of Hartford.

The topic was: EMINENT DOMAIN AFTER KELO: WHAT LIMITS? WHO DECIDES? The following is a summary of my presentation, which was followed by a question and answer segment. I have also included below the article on the Forum as written by The New London Day.

Presentation by Susan Kniep

Thank you for joining us today. I am not an attorney but I bring to this forum the perspective of an average American. An American who believes in the doctrines developed by our forefathers which laid the foundation for a free society void of undue government influence or power. In essence, a government, of, for and by the people of these United States as cemented in our Constitution. That very old document, written 200 years ago, which some will argue is a living document and should be subject to change in accordance with the will of the people over time and others who believe it is the basis of our democracy which we must sustain as written and intended by our forefathers. Regardless where you stand in the constitutional debate, John Adams, our second president, said it best when reflecting upon the passion of our forefathers on property rights issues when he stated the following

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist.

The ensuing debate in Congress regarding the appointment of John Roberts to the Supreme Court places a direct focus on our Constitution. It also demonstrates our vulnerability as citizens of this great country in that unlike the Executive and Legislative branches of government, which reflect a system of checks and balances, the Judiciary at times appears unchecked. Yet we, the people, are subject to the dictates of the Supreme Court as it expands the rights of some and restricts the rights of others.

The recent supreme court decision on Eminent Domain did just that. It restricted the rights of private homeowners in the utilization and retention of their property and expanded the rights of the rich, powerful and politically connected who were given a key to unlock our front door and invade the sanctity of our homes. The decision further served to uproot families on homesteads passed down from generation to generation based not on government need but instead on government greed.

Redevelopment is the precursor to Eminent domain. It is big business. It lines the pockets of developers, lobbyists, attorneys, consultants, and those special interests aligned with government officials who pass laws which undermine our rights.

Elected public officials yield their responsibilities to quasi public agencies which have limited accountability to the public which finances them through their tax dollars.

The New London Development Corporation has received nearly $80 million of our tax dollars. Former Governor Rowland, DECD Commissioner Ellef, and lobbyists associated with them are the creators of this entity.

As 28 States pass laws protecting their constituents from the abuse of eminent domain, Connecticut Democrats sit complacently while Susette Kelo and her neighbors are subject to losing their homes.

The State Office of Legislative Research on September 6, produced a document which states and I quote Since the Kelo decision Alabama, Delaware, and Texas have passed legislation restricting the use of eminent domain. The Alabama law bars the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes except in blighted areas. It also gives the former owner of condemned property a right of first refusal to repurchase the property if it is not used for a public use. The Delaware law requires that the power of eminent domain be exercised only for the purposes of a recognized public use described at least six months in advance of the taking. The Texas act (which has not yet been signed by the governor) bars the use of eminent domain when (1) the taking confers a private benefit on a particular private party; (2) the public use supporting the taking is merely a pretext to confer a private benefit on a private party; or (3) the taking is for economic development purposes, unless the economic development is a secondary purpose resulting from municipal community development or urban renewal activities to eliminate the harm caused by slum or blighted areas.

In addition, legislation has been introduced but not yet adopted in at least 18 states. Most of these bills would bar or limit the use of eminent domain for economic development or tax revenue enhancement purposes. An Ohio proposal would establish a moratorium through 2006 on the use of eminent domain to take private property in unblighted areas for economic development purposes. A New Jersey proposal would limit the use of eminent domain to acquiring land for essential public purposes. A New York bill would require local governments hold a vote to determine whether or not to condemn property that would be transferred to private developers.

To respond to the subject of the forum - What limits? I suggest that there can be no doubt of the intent of our forefathers regarding property rights, as illustrated within our constitution. Reflecting upon the words of John Adams, our forefathers never intended for Americans to turn over their property so that others would prosper and they would lose their property rights as proposed by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, federal, state and local governments must enact legislation to prohibit any individual or group of individuals who promote a private commercial development, from usurping the property rights of the private property owner.

Who decides? The American citizen! The taxpayer! The voter! Last evening I participated in a talk show which drew callers from all over the country to include Milwaukee,Wisconsin, Chicago, and many other states. There is a growing dissention among the public on this issue. They are prepared to come to New London to protect the property rights of those who are being victimized. The Federation began an email campaign to all of our members and concerned taxpayers to contact the Office of the Governor and ask for her intervention when we learned that some New London homeowners had been served with eviction notices this week. We asked the Governor to intercede and to reinforce her order that a moratorium be placed on eminent domain issues until the Legislature concluded its findings.

This morning we awoke to learn that we have a hero in our State. That hero is Governor Rell, who came to the forefront to protect the property rights of the citizens of New London. Further, I predict that those Connecticut legislators who refuse to protect the property rights of Connecticut citizens will not be returned to office in 2006.

What can be done? Congress can put pressure on the States by withholding federal funds if the States fail to protect the property rights of their constituents.

Municipal leaders can pass legislation to restrict eminent domain. Connecticut voters can use their power at the polls to decide who stays and who goes in their State and local governments based upon their leaders effectiveness in protecting their property rights.

Governor Rell should move to take control of the financial resources under the auspices of the New London Development Corporation, and this entity should be disbanded. She should demand an investigation and a forensic audit of state tax dollars given to the NLDC.

And finally, and most importantly, each one of us should stand firmly at the front door of Susette Kelo and her neighbors when New London officials attempt to remove them from their homes.

*******

Passions Still Running Deep, Divided On Issue Of Eminent Domain - Fort Trumbull case discussed at Hartford forum

By PAUL CHOINIERE
New London Day, Norwich Bureau Chief
Published on 9/17/2005

Hartford That the divide remains deep between those who regard eminent domain as a useful tool to promote economic development and those who fear it's a serious threat to liberty was clearly evident at a forum Friday at the state Capitol.

Attorney Wesley Horton of Hartford, who represented New London in the landmark Kelo v. New London case, defended the 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the city's right to use eminent domain as a reasoned decision that provided guidelines intended to prevent abuses in the taking of property for private development.

The cries of outrage following the decision are overwrought, Horton suggested.

When you all leave today and go outside ... take a deep breath, look up into the sky and notice that it is not falling, Horton told the audience of 80 to 100 people who gathered in the Judiciary Room.

But another panelist, Susan Kniep, president of the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayers Association, saw the decision as not something to be made light of, but a real and genuine threat to every individual's freedom and way of life.

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and there is not a force of law or public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist,said Kniep, quoting John Adams, the second president of the United States.

The event was sponsored by the Hartford chapter of the Federalist Society, a self-described group of conservatives and libertarians who advocate for state rights and a strict interpretation of laws and the Constitution.

The debate came a day after Gov. M. Jodi Rell ordered the New London Development Corp. to rescind relocation notices it sent to property owners in the Fort Trumbull area. It is those property owners who the U.S. Supreme Court has said can be evicted, with just compensation, to make way for redevelopment plans in the area. Rell, however, has ordered a statewide moratorium on such property takings until the legislature can decide whether more safeguards are needed in the use of eminent domain.

Those in attendance Friday included residents of the Fort Trumbull properties facing eviction, lawmakers and property owners from other communities who are facing the threat of eminent domain.

We have a hero in this state and we woke up this morning, read the paper, and realized who that is: Gov. Rell,Kniep said. Gov. Rell came to the forefront to protect the rights of the people who live in New London.

Horton, however, said he saw nothing to protect. He pointed to Justice John Paul Stevens opinion in support of the eminent domain ruling. Stevens noted that New London had referred to a development plan in determining that property had to be seized, and demonstrated it was a distressed community in dire need of development to expand its tax base. A plan without those safeguards, which simply sought to seize the property of one person and pass it to another without serving the greater good, would not pass judicial muster, Horton said.

Both Horton and attorney Dana Berliner of the Institute for Justice, which represented the Fort Trumbull property owners in the case, agreed on one thing: the NLDC redevelopment plan will become the blueprint for cities seeking to use eminent domain for redevelopment. They disagreed on whether that is a good thing.

Berliner said it will be no problem for planners and bureaucrats to come up with plans to justify the taking of people's homes. But Horton said the redevelopment plans have to be genuine, as was, he said, the NLDC plan.

A fourth panelist, attorney John Rose Jr., corporation counsel for the City of Hartford, said cities such as New London and Hartford, with limited space for redevelopment, must have the power of eminent domain to put together enough land to make revitalization projects feasible.

But Berliner argued that municipalities are far too quick to turn to that resort, rather than try to work with property owners.

I hear every day that this is only used as a last resort. That doesn't mean anything. Last resort means: We are going to offer you some money and, if you don't take it, we are going to condemn, she said.

As legislatures in Connecticut and across the country consider changes to state laws to limit the use of eminent domain, it may prove to be the case that the Fort Trumbull property owners and the Institute for Justice lost the battle, but won the war, Berliner said.

But Horton cautioned about the doctrine of unintended consequences if lawmakers alter eminent domain laws and limit the taking of property to public works projects. New laws may hinder economic development, allow for only the homes of the poor and their blighted properties to be seized, and tie the hands of local government leaders as they seek to improve the lives of their constituents, he warned.

Economic development is not the poor cousin of roads and bridges, Horton said. It is just as important.