Please note that if you would like to be
added to our email list, write to fctopresident@aol.com.
EMINENT DOMAIN
From Kelo to
the Keystone Pipeline to Governor Malloy’s attempt to exert his control over
cities and towns…..
March
17, 2015
From:
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations
Contact: Susan Kniep, President
Web site: http://ctact.org/
Email: fctopresident@aol.com
Telephone: 860-841-8032
Eminent Domain Conference
Friday, March 20, 2015
Kelo: A Decade Later | UConn School of Law
Conference Details and RSVP Link
********************
EMINENT DOMAIN
Ten years ago, Susette Kelo and her Neighbors in New London, CT lost their battle to Eminent Domain as
they were forced from their homes. Although
developers won, the property on which their homes sat remains vacant.
Today, homeowners, farmers, and
businesses throughout the country are battling a Foreign Corporation which is
attempting to confiscate their property through Eminent Domain to facilitate the
Keystone Pipeline.
The correlation between these two battles is addressed
within the following editorial by Eben Rose. In addition, we also provide you below
with a glimpse of how Eminent Domain is impacting other Americans throughout
the Country to include those in Connecticut.
.
For additional information on Eminent Domain click
http://ctact.org/default.asp?location=eminent_domain&callcontent=no&buttonname=Eminent%20Domain
The
Really Long View: Whose 'eminent domain' is it?
KeepMEcurrent.com By Eben Rose March
12, 2015
Eben Rose lives in South Portland, Maine.
Ten
years ago this month, the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated on an eminent domain
case that stuck a nerve across the nation and is still an enigma in terms of
liberal versus conservative interpretations of the proper role of government.
The
case was called Kelo vs. The City of New London 545
U.S. 469 (2005) and was, in summary, a condemnation of private homes in an
established residential neighborhood – including the home of Susette Kelo – for the purpose of
private redevelopment (by Pfizer Corp.).
The
details of the case were this: Pfizer had approached the city of New London, Conn.,
with a plan to open a new research center on an abandoned segment of the city’s
industrial waterfront. A city committee was re-inaugurated as a nonprofit
corporation to negotiate the plan with Pfizer and was given eminent domain
authority by the city to condemn properties as it saw fit. Pfizer envisioned
new higher-value homes to replace the older homes of the nearby Fort Trumbull neighborhood, and so it sought and
received the right to seize these lived-in homes under eminent domain and
re-sell the property for private redevelopment.
Resident
Susette Kelo summarized the
case succinctly: “They are simply taking our property from us private owners
and giving it to another private owner to develop.”
The
nexus of eminent-domain takings rests in the interpretation of “public use.”
The courts have long decided that “public use” can include “public benefit,”
and if that “public benefit” is justified by government-enforced transfer of
private property, then such seizures are permissible under the “Takings Clause”
of the Fifth Amendment. What made the Kelo case
different from previous cases was that the “public benefit” was only the
hoped-for trickle-down effects of economic development. Kelo
lost her case in a close, but not partisan, 5-4 ruling.
Justice
O’Conner wrote for the dissenting judges that, “the government now has license
to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more,” and
that, “nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a
Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, any farm with a factory.” In a
separate dissent, Justice Thomas likened this power to the “negro removal” of
the 1950s.
Two sad
epilogues followed. For one, had the court known that Pfizer was so intimately
involved in the process from the outset, at least one justice, Justice Kennedy,
would have ruled against New London based on flawed due process. But this
intimate involvement was only discovered after the decision was rendered. For another, and more sadly, Pfizer pulled out of the deal
shortly after the ruling. The waterfront remains undeveloped to this day and
the Fort Trumbull neighborhood is a ghost town of razed
homes, including Susette Kelo’s.
Presently
in Nebraska the
rights of landowners are being challenged in the courts over the Keystone XL
pipeline. There, the powerfully lawyered-up
TransCanada Corp. and its allies, including those lawmakers whose candidacy
they sponsored in the state’s unicameral legislature, have been forging ahead
with the KXL plan.
Similar
battles in Maine over
natural gas pipelines have yet to rage, but already Gov. LePage
has promised to fast-track eminent domain actions, and in so doing to silence
and disempower landowners in the process.
The
deep cultural question in all of these battles is who “the public” is in
receiving the “public benefits” of eminent domain. The Maine State Constitution
forbids eminent domain action for economic development alone, but this hardly
clarifies the “public benefit” that is wrapped up in some vague future discount
in fossil fuel prices.
There
is a flipside. “Public benefit” can be motivated by environmental concerns.
Infrastructure that enables the burning of fossil fuels and increases
atmospheric CO2 is a dubious public benefit as our own government increasingly
acknowledges. And so eminent domain takings can, at least theoretically, be
justified as a way to shut down such developments rather than enable them.
Our
current national political climate seems concerned with corporate control of
government while at the same time about the overarching power of government
generally. If “we” are the government, then eminent domain can be used as a
check on private (corporate) interpretations of “public benefit.” If “they” are
the government, then landowners beware.
Eben Rose
lives in South Portland.
http://www.keepmecurrent.com/current/the-really-long-view-whose-eminent-domain-is-it/article_1e6a109a-c8cd-11e4-a63f-3372e734ae94.html
*******************
NEBRASKA
Full
Coverage
Keystone
XL foes rally against Nebraska pipeline law
CTV News March 11, 2015
LINCOLN, Neb. -- Opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline
appealed to Nebraska lawmakers on Wednesday in their latest effort to overturn
the state law that allowed former Gov. Dave Heineman
to approve a route through the state.
Judiciary
committee hears eminent domain arguments
Beatrice Daily Sun March 12, 2015 • By Nicholas Bergin/Lee Enterprises
Nebraska landowners opposed to the construction of the Keystone XL
pipeline across their farms and ranches lined up Wednesday to support a state
bill to strip TransCanada of its powers of eminent domain.
But one
of the company’s top employees in Nebraska, Andrew Craig of Omaha, told
Nebraska’s Legislative Judiciary Committee the bill introduced by Omaha Sen.
Ernie Chambers (LB473) would not affect its plans for the Keystone XL, although
it could stymie future pipeline projects in the state.
“It
would not be applied retroactively and therefore would have no impact on what we’re
trying to do in developing the Keystone XL,” Craig said in an interview
following the hearing.
TransCanada
is waiting to hear from President Barack Obama on whether it will be given a
permit to build across the border between the United States and Canada. The pipeline would run from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City on
the Nebraska-Kansas border, where it would connect with existing pipelines that
would carry the oil to refineries along the U.S. GulfCoast.
Continue
reading at ….. http://beatricedailysun.com/news/state-and-regional/judiciary-committee-hears-eminent-domain-arguments/article_4574a604-30e4-55b0-b62b-6423404c084d.html
During
4-hour hearing, backers, foes debate bill that would remove eminent domainauthority for ... future oil pipelines
POSTED: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2015 9:00 PM
By Joe Duggan / World-Herald Bureau
LINCOLN
— If not for a Canadian company’s power to condemn private land in Nebraska,
the Keystone XL pipeline would stand almost no chance of being built.
Continue
reading at….. http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/during--hour-hearing-backers-foes-debate-bill-that-would/article_2014e697-611f-5d0d-998f-dd728b478ab7.html
*******************
Malloy
proposes transit authority for train station projects
CT Post Bill Cummings and Alex Gecan Monday,
March 16, 2015
The governor has also drawn criticism over $145,000 in
donations to the state Democratic Party by
the developer of the Stamford project. Those donations came in as
the company was being selected by the state.
State Rep. Gail Lavielle, R-Wilton. labeled the bill
"eminent domain on steroids."
Read her editorial below….
The bill would challenge home rule, said state Sen. Jonathan Steinberg,
D-Westport.
HARTFORD -- A plan by Gov. Dannel P. Malloyto
create a statewide transit authority to oversee development of train stations
is drawing opposition from officials and advocates worried about losing
local control.
"Were
Dannel Malloy still mayor of Stamford,
he would scream bloody murder if a bill like this was introduced in Hartford,"
said James Cameron, founder
of the Commuter Action Group.
"As
governor, he seems to have no qualms at telling 169 towns and cities he knows
best, that Hartford will determine if skyscrapers built by private developers
should be plopped down in your town and mine," Cameron said.
Malloy
is backing a bill now before the General Assembly that
would create the Connecticut Transit Corridor Development Authority, a quasi-state agency charged with redeveloping existing
train stations and building new ones, such as a second station proposed
for Bridgeport. Continue
reading at …. http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Malloy-proposes-transit-authority-for-train-6137736.php
*********************
Eminent
domain on steroids: New bill threatens cities, towns
Minuteman News Center
By CONNECTICUT State Rep. Gail Lavielle
How
would you feel if a group of people who lived elsewhere in the state and whom
no one had elected were to take over certain planning and zoning functions in
your town or city and unilaterally make critical decisions about entire
neighborhoods — like who could own property there, and what they could do with
it? Although this scenario seems far-fetched, it is clearly outlined in
governor’s bill HB 6851, which has just received a public hearing in the
General Assembly.
HB 6851 would strip towns and cities of part of their local planning and zoning
decision-making authority by transferring it to a board of state-level
appointees. It would also permanently expose all those who own property
anywhere within half a mile of a rail or bus station to the threat of eminent
domain.
On the surface, the purpose of HB 6851 is laudable: to promote transit-oriented
development. TOD both encourages the use of public transit and makes it easily
accessible to people who cannot or choose not to drive.
TOD’s
potential beneficiaries include, among others, young professionals, seniors,
people with disabilities, and people with limited incomes.
Those living outside TOD areas benefit too, from reduced vehicle emissions,
less traffic, a multi-generational populace, and concentration of development
away from greenspaces.
TOD is a concept that many communities would like to pursue. But under HB 6851
they might not have the chance, because instead, it would be pursued for them
by a group of political appointees, without any requirement for local approvals
at all.
Here’s the substance of the bill:
Continue reading at ….http://www.minutemannewscenter.com/articles/2015/03/17/westport/opinion/op_ed/doc55085f7696c16445437252.txt?viewmode=fullstory