From: Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer
Organizations, Inc.
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
841-8032
September 18, 2005
EMINENT
DOMAIN AFTER KELO:
WHAT
LIMITS? WHO DECIDES?
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 country’s second president said
it best when reflecting upon the passion of our forefathers on property rights
issues when he stated "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’s 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. Travel to the website of the cottage
coalition http://www.cottagecoalition.org/rowland.htm
and you will understand why
an investigation and audit of these funds are warranted.
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’s 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 John Adams’ words, 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 Governor’s office 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 State’s 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's 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're going to offer you some money and, if you don't take it,
we're 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.”