The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations,
Inc. (FCTO)
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
860-524-6501
June 30, 2005
ATTEND JULY 5 RALLY NEW LONDON
SUPREME COURT RULES CITIES MAY SEIZE HOMES
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050624/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property/nc:701
From Susan Kniep, President, FCTO: Today, we are no
longer a nation of, for and by the people. We are instead a nation of,
for and by the rich, powerful, and politically connected who have been handed a
key to unlock our front door and invade the sanctity of our homes.
My thoughts and prayers are with the good people of New London who believed that their country would protect them.
Instead, they and all Americans have been put at risk of losing their most
valued possession which money could never replace. Homes, many of which have been handed down from generation to
generation, are much more than the brick and mortar which sustain them.
Their true structure of strength is the heart and soul of the people who live
within them.
HOME OWNERS – BUSINESS OWNERS – CHURCHES
UNITE
AGAINST GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER
OF OUR PROPERTIES
ALL
AMERICANS ARE AT RISK
ATTEND THE JULY 5 RALLY
6 PM, CITY HALL, STATE STREET, NEW LONDON
FORT (For Our Rights Today)
is holding a RALLY on Tuesday, July 5 at 6PM on the steps of City Hall on State Street in New London. There is a Parking Garage on the corner behind City
Hall. Scott Bullock, the lead attorney
from the Institute of Justice who argued the Kelo v New London case in front of the Supreme Court will be present.
We are hoping to have a few other interesting speakers. Please do everything you can to be
there. A strong showing is important not only for the Fort Trumbull residents but people across the nation.
If you would like more
information, please contact Susette Kelo at 860-447-0466 or Kathleen Mitchell at 860-701-0023 or email address Orkenizer44@aol.com
Remember: If not now then when, If not
us then who!
Please share this information with family
and friends.
*******
The
following is information on other courses of action being taken in addressing
the Supreme Court decision….
This website
will take you to the PETITION FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES - We the People of the United States, do hereby demand that our duly
elected representatives in both houses of Congress, initiate impeachment
proceedings against the following Supreme Court Justices: John Paul Stevens,
Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer
http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html
*******
On Saturday, June 25, 2005, during a meeting of The
Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. the following motion was
put on the floor and unanimously approved.
Motion:
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. calls upon the Connecticut Congressional delegation to initiate an amendment to the
United States Constitution that will repeal the decision by the United States
Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v City of New London.
*******
Other
interesting News Items and Websites:
FROM CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: The federal ruling stops short of giving
governments carte blanche to condemn whatever property they want, though it
sets no explicit limits on what conditions must be met for seizure, said David
Franklin, a constitutional law professor at DePaul University College of
Law. The only real check on
government's power may be the people's voice at the ballot box, he said. "I'm not sure this Supreme Court
decision necessarily is going to produce a dramatic increase in the use of
eminent domain for (economic development)," Franklin said. "I
would tend to doubt it, actually. There's always a political cost to pay. It's
not always easy to get people on your side on these things and you might get
voted out if you take too many people's homes."
DALLAS MORNING NEWS: The second case took place in China just a few weeks
ago. The government went into a farming community to remove the people so that
they could build a stadium for the Olympics. The people didn't want to move;
they'd been there for years. They were beaten, arrested and dragged off. I was
outraged, appalled and incensed. How could a government do this to hardworking
people? This decision by our Supreme Court puts the U.S. on the same level
as China when it comes to
the property rights of the individual. I'm outraged, appalled and
incensed. How could they approve the
taking of private property from the good people of this nation for the sake of
the wealthy? (Perhaps a little under-the-table money?)
The five judges, such as they are, lowered the U.S. to the same level
of a communist nation. No decision has been so wrong, so anti-American.
THE SEATTLE TIME: The right to own
and reasonably use private property is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution,
differentiating our country from others around the world. As John
Adams, one of our nation's Founding Fathers and our second president, said:
"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." The right to own property is, in
fact, one of the important rights by which we secure our freedom. Adams, Jefferson and the other
Founding Fathers helped establish this right because they understood that
ownership of property was evidence of liberty. In Europe, kings could take
your property — as the British did to the Colonies.
THE NEW JERSEY JOURNAL: Potter said that
government is "no longer judging property by whether it is detrimental to
the public good, which is how blight was interpreted." Instead, he said,
government "is judging (property) by what it is not. Single-family homes
are not high-priced condominiums. This trailer park in Lodi is not a new
condominium development. The (municipal) parking lot in Princeton is not a
five-story parking garage. "By
that standard, the front lawn of (Princeton University's) Nassau Hall is underutilized. You could definitely put a
lot of income-producing properties there."
VIRGINIA TV WAVY: Shocked at a
U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that allows cities to raze homes so developers can build private hotels,
malls and office parks on the land, Virginia lawmakers called for legislation to ban the practice
Friday.
AP: A bill restricting
the ability of local governments to take private land for redevelopment
projects has been sent to Governor Guinn.The Senate
agreed with changes made to the bill introduced by Senator Terry Care to
restrict the use of eminent domain by redevelopment agencies. Care sought the bill as a result of Las Vegas' taking of
private property for the Fremont Street Experience a
decade ago. The final version of the bill allows government to take land
for open-space purposes but requires good-faith negotiations first. In the area of redevelopment, the measure
would allow the original owner to take the property back if it was not put to
use for a project within 15 years.
Owners of commercial property taken for redevelopment also would have to
be paid for the loss of business income, not just the value of the property.
NEWS JOURNAL FLORIDA: USA - DAYTONA
BEACH -- A judge told lawyers Wednesday to watch for a U.S. Supreme
Court decision that could affect their battle over the city's right to condemn
property for private development.That case before the high court stems from a
similar fight in New London, Conn., where opponents argue the city's plan to
develop its waterfront is unconstitutional because the condemnation is for
private development, not public use.
Locked in the middle of a Daytona Beach trial on that
very issue, Circuit Judge John W. Watson III will decide whether the owners of
three properties along the Boardwalk should be forced to sell so a California developer can
complete a $120 million hotel tower, retail and restaurant project on the Atlantic Ocean
KING COUNTY JOURNAL WASHINGTON STATE: The sky may be
falling on property rights in Connecticut after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling, but safeguards exist
in Washington state to protect property owners. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled Thursday that local governments may seize private property under eminent
domain for use in private commercial redevelopment. The case concerned a group
of homeowners in New London, Conn., who didn't want
their homes condemned and razed to make room for a commercial office and hotel
complex. Washington state courts, however, ``have been fairly consistent in
rulings that would prevent the sort of unfair transfer'' that is happening in Connecticut, Maurer said.
Constitutional
protection: The Washington state
Constitution gives property owners greater rights than the U.S. Constitution.
Section I, Article 16
of the state Constitution reads in part, ``Private property shall not be taken
for private use, except for private ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes,
or ditches on or across the lands of others for agricultural, domestic, or
sanitary purposes.''
State Attorney General Rob McKenna of Bellevue said Thursday
that when local government seeks to condemn private property, the state
constitution reserves to the courts the role of determining what constitutes a
public use.
The Washington Supreme Court has defined the ``public
benefit'' limitation more narrowly than the definition used by the U.S. Supreme
Court in the Connecticut decision, McKenna said, so a similar case here ``would
likely be evaluated as a matter of state constitutional law under standards
that are potentially more protective of private property rights than those used
by the U.S. Supreme Court today.''
State Solicitor General Maureen Hart said Washington
property owners also have an added protection in that no one can appeal the
state's more restrictive provision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
``States are entitled
to have constitutions that are more protective of individual rights than the U.S. Constitution,'' Hart said. Only if the state Constitution
was less restrictive could its provisions be appealed.
The state Constitution
doesn't even grant condemnation rights to local government. The rights are
granted to the state, which delegates them to local cities through statue.
A short list for
condemnation
``Chapter 8.12 of the Revised Code of Washington contains a
fairly specific list of things that you can condemn for, with the additional provision
-- there's sort of a catch-all `for any other public purpose,''' said Jim
Haney, Redmond's city attorney.
``But the Washington Supreme Court has
constructed that public purpose fairly narrowly,'' he said.
The most recent attempt to use condemnation for private
purposes was in the early 1980s, said Hugh Spitzer, a public finance lawyer in
Seattle and constitutional law professor at the University of Washington Law
School. The Supreme Court refused to let Seattle condemn the
Mayflower Hotel and Sherman Clay piano store
to make way for the private development of Westlake Mall.
``Consequently, Westlake includes only
properties sold voluntarily to the city,'' Spitzer said, ``and the Mayflower
and Sherman Clay still exist.''
Condemning for public
safety
Property can be condemned for private use only if it
involves ``a real public safety hazard,'' including dilapidated and dangerous
buildings and high drug and crime areas, Spitzer said.
``Governments can declare a public safety blight,'' which
the city of Tukwila did a decade ago
on a stretch of Highway 99.
The area is much nicer and safer today, Spitzer said.
Possibly one result of this is that local governments can be
cautious in using their power to condemn.
Kirkland officials briefly considered condemning property on
Lake Street for a view corridor to Lake Washington, after the Trattoria restaurant burned in 1994, said state Rep. Larry
Springer, then a Kirkland City Council member.
The city wanted to buy the property, but the property owner
set a much higher price than they were willing to pay, recalled city planning
Director Eric Shields.
Ultimately, council members rejected the idea, Springer
said. ``We determined opening Lake Street to the lake was
not an essential need.''
Bellevue prefers negotiations
``We have never done nor have we ever contemplated
condemnation for economic development purposes,'' said Matthew Terry, Bellevue's Planning and
Community Development director.
``Even when buying rights of way for streets we try to buy
it through negotiation rather than using condemnation,'' Terry said.
Even with the history of how sparingly local government has
used eminent domain, Maurer said it does not mean that the state Constitution
can't be amended to make it easier to condemn private property.
The legislative process to do so is rather cumbersome,
however, and he is wary of how judges may react to the Supreme Court ruling.
Courts may change
course
``For many years the Washington state Supreme
Court read our state protections as coextensive with the federal,'' Maurer
said. ``What we need to be careful of is that our courts don't go back to that,
and in effect amend the Constitution by interpretation.''
``Of course it's always possible,'' said Redmond's Haney. ``I
suppose some court could say `Well, OK, the U.S. Supreme Court has
said this is included in public purpose and use and therefore you can do it.''
But it would be ``a significant change in the way Washington courts interpret
the Washington Constitution,''
Haney said.
Other Interesting Websites:
Property can be taken for
development-Supreme Court
Reuters - 26 minutes ago
By James Vicini. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided US Supreme Court
ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person's home for a development
project aimed at revitalizing a depressed local economy, a decision that could
have nationwide impact. ...
Court: Cities may seize homes for economic development
Stamford Advocate
Government Power to Take Property Backed by Top Court
(Update1) Bloomberg
San Francisco Chronicle - Minneapolis Star Tribune (subscription) - WFSB -
New Albany Tribune - all 72 related »!