Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations,
Inc.
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
860-528-0323
June 1, 2006
GOVERNOR RELL WANTS FORT TRUMBULL HOMEOWNERS
OUT OF THEIR HOMES
On June 1, 2006 Governor Rell
issued the following letter to the Mayor of New London.
Rell’s letter demonstrates that she refuses to
protect the property rights of Susette Kelo and others who wish to remain in their homes and on
their property. Instead Rell and her team are forcing homeowners to settle and
leave. Rell’s
letter also helps to clarify that which Rick Green, columnist for the Hartford
Courant, wrote Is Gov. Rell Really Set To Rumble? Green wrote “after eight years, this
ugly eminent domain fight might teach us something. “It's whether our top leader is really a
leader.”
Susette Kelo and all Connecticut homeowners
who live under the threat of Eminent Domain now and those who could be at risk
in the future deserved better from Governor Rell!
It is now time for Governor Rell
to clarify her position in the Eminent Domain debate as
Governors throughout our country are now doing? Of the Eminent Domain statutes proposed by
our State legislature during this past legislative session, what did Governor Rell support? What
input, if any, did Rell offer in the construction of
the Eminent Domain Statutes on which
public hearings were held? On what
side of the table does the Governor now sit in the national Eminent Domain
debate? Does Governor Rell sit with the Mayors and developers who want to retain
State laws to take our homes or does Governor Rell
sit on the side of the table with the homeowners who are attempting to have
State laws enacted to protect our property rights?
Included below are
- Governor Rell’s
Letter to the Mayor of New London
- Rick Green’s column
- My Statement made at the May 22 Press
Conference on Eminent Domain
- Hartford Courant’s Editorial on Eminent Domain
- Lawrence Cohen’s column re Eminent Domain
6.
Letter to the Editor from Tom Lacey of New London
7. Letter from Carl Yacobacci of Derby, CT
Governor Rell’s
Letter to the Mayor of New London
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=7cc9e8c3-15de-4566-b4fc-b320c9e5acc0
May 31, 2006
The Honorable Elizabeth Sabilia
Mayor
City of New London
181 State Street
New London, CT 06320
Dear Mayor Sabilia: We will soon
mark the one-year anniversary of the United
States Supreme Court decision in Kelo
vs. City of New London.
As you well know, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of New London yet certain plaintiffs continue to occupy
property owned by the City on the Fort
Trumbull peninsula.
During much of the past year, you, the state Department of
Economic and Community Development (DECD) acting at my direction, and the
state's mediator, Dr. Robert Albright, have attempted to seek a resolution
between the City of New London and the peninsula's occupants.
In that time and at my request, DECD has repeatedly sought
to facilitate mutually agreeable settlements between the City and the
occupants. I realize that you as well have made significant efforts to resolve
the disputes between the individual occupants and the City, including
structuring settlement offers which forgive Use and Occupancy Fees and Charges
owed to the City.
Yesterday I met with DECD Commissioner James Abromaitis, Dr. Robert Albright and others and directed Dr.
Albright to meet around the clock, in advance of tonight's deadline and your
Council meeting next week, to seek agreements with the remaining occupants. I
am pleased to report that owners Dery and Brelesky have in fact reached agreement today and that we
will continue our efforts to reach agreement with others.
Neither the State of Connecticut,
nor I as Governor, possess the legal authority to
overrule a decision of the United States
Supreme Court or to order the City of New
London to return property titles to the occupants.
Despite several opportunities, including a special legislative session called for
the purpose of considering changes to the State's eminent domain laws following
the Supreme Court's decision and the recently concluded regular legislative
session, the Connecticut General Assembly has failed to act in a comprehensive
manner on this issue. The City of New London
possesses the legal right and authority, as evidenced by both the Connecticut Supreme Court and United
States Supreme Court decisions, to proceed with the plan
to develop the entire Fort
Trumbull peninsula.
Mayor Sabilia, I request that you
share with the New London
City Council at the Monday, June 5, 2006 scheduled meeting of the Council
certain points:
(1) With regard to the remaining occupants, please advise
the Council that we will continue our assiduous efforts to reach agreements
with the remaining property owners but that state funds that have previously
been made available to the City to assist in reaching a financial settlement
shall be withdrawn and will be unavailable as to any remaining occupants who
have not reached an agreement as of June 15, 2006;
(2) With regard to the remaining owners who have not reached
settlements with the City, the State of Connecticut
recommends that the City offer to relocate their primary residences (but not
investment properties) to an appropriate location on Parcel 4A, accompanied
with a deed to the parcel upon which their homes will be relocated. Such deeds
should include restrictive covenants to protect the development and cause title
to the properties and all improvements to revert to the City upon transfer or
death of the title holder. As title holders, the occupants would discharge all
of the duties and responsibilities of ownership consistent with City ordinances
and state law.
Time is running out and it is my continued hope that the
situation can be resolved by agreement of the parties. Court decisions and the
laws of the State of Connecticut as they
currently exist are clearly on the side of the City of New
London as it proceeds with the Fort Trumbull
development. As such, I am also asking that the City continue its efforts to
reach a mutually agreeable resolution. The development of the Fort Trumbull
peninsula is central to the revitalization of the City of New London as it strives to improve the
quality of life for its residents. The parcel holds tremendous potential for New London and southeastern Connecticut as a whole.
I remain sympathetic to the efforts of the few remaining
owners and hold out hope that they reconsider the State's offer of a financial
settlement by June 15th. I am urging all parties to quickly settle any
remaining disputes.
Very truly yours,
M. JODI RELL
Governor
*******
Is Gov. Rell Really Set To Rumble?
May 26, 2006, Rick
Green, Columnist, Hartford
Courant
Big
Brother wants their homes and all our governor can say to these New London property
owners is let's "redouble" efforts to prevent this.
How about: You kick them out of their homes, New London, I take away the state money for
your pretty waterfront condos and boutique hotel.
It's long past redoubling time. We are not talking about resolving to stick to
a diet here. It's eight years into this New London eminent domain mess and residents of the city's
Fort Trumbull neighborhood have been handed a
May 31 eviction deadline.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell just says let's work a little
harder to give these folks the price they want for their homes?
The seven remaining property owners in Fort Trumbull
aren't looking for cash. They say they want their homes, not the latest deal
cut by a Rell-appointed mediator.
"This is not a money issue," said Michael Cristofaro,
whose family is one of the holdouts standing in the way of the grand Fort Trumbull
plans. "It is a right to live where you want."
Credit Rell with staring down the New London Redevelopment
Corp. last September. She forced them to rescind eviction notices served
on Fort Trumbull residents - whose land had been
seized under eminent domain - to give the legislature time to consider changes
in the law.
The legislature did nothing. And now New London, backed by last June's U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in its favor, is moving to evict the remaining Fort
Trumbull residents and charge them nearly $1 million in fees and penalties.
Unless, of course, the residents accept a sweetened offer of more money for
their homes and make way for the condos and hotel.
So we will soon see whether Gov. Rell is willing to
take on the U.S. Supreme
Court, crony developers and New London's
bumbling political machine.
When the Fort Trumbull
residents came to Hartford
this week to try to nudge the governor, they got political blather. I'm sure
folks do need to "redouble their efforts to bring about a resolution"
but we're talking about a city that thinks some types of residents are better
than others.
I asked Rell's office if it was time to stand up for
what you believe in. New London
officials have done this, telling the seven holdout residents they have until
Wednesday to accept the city's offer.
"The governor is well aware of the residents' desires and is committed to
reaching a negotiated settlement with each of them," spokesman Judd
Everhart told me.
It seems the governor thinks these holdouts just want to shake down New London for more
money. Her mediator, Robert Albright, "has to move beyond these
discussions of who wants to sell," said Scott Bullock, lawyer for the Fort Trumbull
residents.
"They want the title to their property. They want to hold on to their
homes," said Bullock, senior attorney with the Virginia-based Institute
for Justice.
Giving the residents back their homes won't interfere with the development,
Bullock said, because residents with homes in the way are willing to have their
buildings moved to a small portion of the property, known as parcel 4A, where
no immediate construction is planned.
So what's at stake isn't the future of the Fort Trumbull
project. But after eight years, this ugly eminent domain fight might teach us
something.
It's whether our top leader is really a leader.
*******
PRESS CONFERENCE
May 22, 2006
Subject:
Eminent Domain
Statement by Susan Kniep,
President,
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer
Organizations, Inc.
We stand here today in recognition of one
of the greatest Patriots of our time, Susette Kelo.
Susette
embodies the principles and convictions of our founding fathers who 230 years
ago penned a document intended to give Americans the right to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness through a government which has historically been of,
for and by the people. This document,
our Declaration of Independence,
laid the foundation for our freedoms from injustice by governments which, if
not held in check, could exert powers detrimental to its people. Susette Kelo took to heart the convictions of
our founding fathers who incorporated within our Declaration of Independence the following
edict.
“Whenever any Form of Government, becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The Safety and Happiness of Americans throughout our country were
placed in jeopardy with the 2005 Supreme Court ruling which allowed governments
to give developers a key to our front door and invade the sanctity of our homes
for financial gain. Since the 2005
Supreme Court decision, the people of these United States have joined in
solidarity with one conviction. To
protect their property rights from Eminent Domain abuse, by restraining
government and private developers from taking possession of their homes, and
forcing them off their properties.
Forty-seven states have introduced more than 325
measures to protect their constituents from eminent domain abuse. The financial institution of BB&T, with
$109.2 billion in assets, announced in January, 2006 that it “will not lend to
commercial developers who plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other
private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities
using eminent domain.” Recently, BB&T bank
officials reinforced its position that it would not finance private-use
redevelopment projects on private property seized by eminent domain. Their spokesman again stated "If it's
for a public project, we'd be delighted to finance it. But not for private use.
Not for shopping malls. Not for condominiums."
Throughout the United States, State legislatures are passing
laws to protect their constituents from Eminent Domain abuse with the most
recent being Minnesota. Governor Tim Pawlenty is expected to sign a law which “ prohibits
municipalities from using eminent domain to transfer property from one owner to
another for private commercial development”.
Yet, in Connecticut,
our State legislature convened without enacting legislation to protect the
property rights of Connecticut homeowners to
include Susette Kelo and
her Fort Trumbull neighbors.
Families on homesteads passed down from generation to
generation are being uprooted. The
recent passing of Wilhelmina Dery, a lifelong
resident of New London,
has put a face on this issue. She
fought to keep her property from being seized by the government. She was 88 years of age on her passing. She had lived her entire life in her
homestead at 87 Walbach Street, as had
generations before her. She was forced
to live her final days in a state of fear and anxiety not knowing if her home,
the only home she ever knew, would be taken from her.
Ms. Dery is symbolic of the grave
injustice that has been perpetrated against the good people of New London and
other Connecticut residents as Eminent Domain, like an infectious disease, is
spread throughout our State by government agencies and their designees.
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 the rights of Connecticut property
owners.
Our
state tax dollars not only provide the financial resources to confiscate our
homes but also the money to finance the private jobs of some state elected
officials employed by quasi public development agencies, who rely upon
Eminent Domain for their livelihood.
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. stands
here today to :
1)
Commend Governor Rell
for interceding in 2005 to rescind the eviction notices issued against Susette Kelo and her neighbors by
the New London Development Corporation.
At that time, Governor Rell did as much for the
citizens of our State as she did for Susette Kelo. Governor Rell emerged as a hero at a time when the citizens of our
State needed a hero to do what was morally right.
2)
To encourage Governor Rell
to again intercede on behalf of Susette Kelo and her neighbors and to encourage the City of New
London and the NLDC to return to them the deeds to their properties so that
they can live, for years to come, in the
peace and sanctity of the homes they love.
In so doing, we believe that Governor Rell
will have established herself not only as a leader in the Eminent Domain debate
but the Governor will ultimately set the stage for effective legislation to
follow to protect the property rights of all Connecticut property owners.
3)
To ask the State Legislature to enact
Legislation which will prohibit State Legislators in their private capacity
from holding influential positions in quasi public development agencies which
rely upon Eminent Domain and whose salaries are paid in whole or in part with
state tax dollars.
4)
To introduce the Federation’s Taxpayer Bill of
Rights which includes reform of Eminent Domain legislation to
protect property owners from government seizure of their property for private
developers for financial gain.
In summary, we again turn to Governor Rell to protect the property rights of Susette Kelo and her New London
neighbors. We ask that Governor Rell assume a position at the head of the negotiation table
and encourage the City of New London
and the New London Development
Corporation to give back to Susette Kelo and her neighbors the deeds to their properties.
No one in our State or our country should have to bear the
burden which has plagued the New
London homeowners for these many years as they have
worked so valiantly to keep their most prized possession, their homes. This is not a bricks and mortar issue. This issue goes to the heart and soul of all Connecticut residents
who believe in the rights guaranteed to us by our founding fathers. 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."
**********
Hartford Courant Editorial
Stop Shameful
Eviction Plan
May 30, 2006
Gov. M. Jodi
Rell expressed the views of many disappointed
property owners when she criticized the General Assembly for being
"largely silent on the overall issue of eminent domain."
After much justifiable Sturm und Drang about Connecticut's law that
allows private land to be seized for private use, the legislature did nothing
to change it. The status quo pretty much gives municipalities carte blanche to
take a person's property if they think someone else will pay more t A flurry of
good ideas emerged during a special legislative session to fix the law. It was
called after the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld, in a 5-4 decision, the city of New
London's right to condemn the homes of working families in the Fort Trumbull
neighborhood. The homes were to be razed for a speculative private development
project to complement Pfizer's global research and development presence and a
state-subsidized remake of the waterfront.
Several displaced residents who brought the lawsuit have steadfastly refused to
leave. They have garnered national bipartisan sympathy, including Gov. Rell's.
They should be permitted to stay. Some of the residents have lived in that
neighborhood for a lifetime. The city's attempts to put a
price on that history misses the point. They don't want money. They want
their homes.
Despite Mrs. Rell's plea to preserve the homes and
let the partially state-sponsored development go on around them, the residents
face a May 31 eviction deadline.
The New London
City Council has ignored reasonable compromise, including the residents'
willingness to move their homes to a neighborhood site that wouldn't interfere
with the city's plans.
If the holdouts do not agree to terms for vacating their properties by the
deadline, they will face nearly $1 million in penalties and lose their homes to
boot.
Mrs. Rell must step in and stop this from happening.
She should use her power to insist that the development plan be revised to
include the remaining homes. The state's heavy investment in Fort Trumbull,
its museum and the river walk give her the clout to insist on changes in the
plans forged during the Rowland administration.
She alone can prevent this mistake from compounding.
What an image for Connecticut
- to be a national example of how not to treat homeowners.
*********
Shameful
Surrender On Property Rights
Laurence Cohen
May 26 2006
The often-told story of President Ronald Reagan's first Cabinet meeting goes
something like this: He marches into the room, sits down at the conference
table, and says, "Communism, Taxes, Inflation. I hate them. Fix it."
And then he got up and left.
True or not, the tale reflects what made Reagan as popular as he was: a point
of view, a philosophy of governing; a sense of right and wrong that didn't
waver, that didn't make him sound like a John Kerry.
To be sure, Reagan was no philosopher-king, but voters respect politicians who
are consistent and honest about their core beliefs - even when the voters don't
necessarily agree with what the pol is attempting to
do.
The idealized Reagan intellectual integrity came to mind during Connecticut's General
Assembly proceedings this year, as almost every legislator, and the governor as
well, managed to escape the session without shedding any blood in defense of
property rights.
The very state that was at the center of the national outrage over eminent
domain abuse by grasping, unaccountable government and pseudo-government
agencies, manages to complete an entire legislative session without one reform,
one repair, one legislative impediment to tossing you out of your house so that
government can build something it likes better.
It's not that all of the legislators are aimless drones, staggering around the
Capitol without a clue about what is important.
No, many of them are quite expert at accomplishing whatever their labor unions,
corporate employers, social service agencies and trade associations want done.
The legislators know they aren't up there to do the "people's work,"
but one might think that on an issue such as eminent domain, they could awaken
from their special-interest stupor and uphold an essential constitutional
principle that protects us all.
And Gov. M. Jodi Rell wasn't much better. Here was
her chance to show a little spunk, or, God forbid, act out like a nutty
Republican, if just for a second. She could have told the boys and girls that
she would veto every little special interest gift they passed up there at the
General Assembly, until and unless they got around to restoring property
rights.
Based on the New London eminent domain case that stumbled all the way up to the
U.S. Supreme Court, many states rushed to toughen the standards by which state
and local government could seize your property, not only for "public
purposes" such as roads and bridges, but for virtually anything a
government bully decided would be more fun than your stupid little house.
In Connecticut,
the mayors and first selectmen and urban planning conspirators and their
shadowy trade associations worked their magic, insisting that limiting their
right to send in the bulldozers was too high a price to pay for a bit of silly
constitutional principle.
Oh, there were Republican legislators who fought half a good fight on the
issue, but no one - not one legislator, not the governor, not anyone at all -
chained themselves to the doors of the legislative chambers and demanded
protection for something so fundamental as personal property rights.
Senate Republicans got cranky with time running out, but the Democrats snuffed
out the last hope for eminent domain reform - with appropriate clucking about
how they would get back to us with a plan of their own. Sure.
It would be easy enough to bash the Democrats for being what they are:
knee-jerk defenders of big-government authority to muck around in your business
and intrude on your property rights. But this legislature's performance
deserves more than a bit of ritual Democrat-bashing. Where was the outrage from
anyone at all?
They want you to forget the New London
case. They want you to forget that an unaccountable agency was authorized to
bulldoze houses, so that other people who were prettier and richer would have
somewhere nice to work and play. The Supreme Court said: Clarify the legal
protections if you're nervous.
Many states took the hint, with specific restrictions and prohibitions on
eminent domain property grabs for the economic gain of private parties. In Connecticut, we did
nothing. There was no Reagan-like figure up there in Hartford to suggest that nothing was more
important than protecting the integrity of private property. It was
disgraceful.
Laurence D. Cohen is a public policy consultant who served as special
assistant to former Gov. John G. Rowland. His column appears every Friday. He
can be reached at cohencolumn@aol.com.
*******
Dear Editor,
No-one has a right to their property in Connecticut,
and apparently no-one cares. I write from New London,
home of the famous Kelo supreme
court case at Fort
Trumbull. Soon our
city council, under the oversight of Governor Rell,
will remove Suzette Kelo and her neighbors from their
homes, they will be charged
hundreds of thousands of dollars in "fees."
Perhaps you're confused, Governor Rell put a
moratorium on eminent domain and 88 percent of the state is opposed the the Kelo decision.
In reality Governor Rell made the situation worse for
Kelo and her neighbors. She sent a negotiator because
the residents refused to sell out. The negotiator
refused to negotiate and would only offer to buy out the residents for more money. When it
backfired and the residents again refused to sell Rell,
who through
the Department of Economic and Community Development DECD) controls all the
money for the Fort
Trumbull project, claimed
she has nothing to do with the
project. Incidentally Rell's DECD, who holds
the purse strings to the Fort
Trumbull project, helps towns eminent domain people's homes for economic
development; like they did with Suzette Kelo.
Across the country states are passing legislation to prevent this sort of
eminent domain; Connecticut
does nothing. If I'm wrong, if your right to your
property is important to you, I recommend you do what I did just today. Call Governor Rell at 1-800-406-1527 and tell her you will not be voting
for her this
November if she does not: 1. Have the titles returned to Suzette Kelo and her neighbors and 2. Work on legislation to
prevent this in the future. In New
London we know this is within Governor Rell's
power, and are hopeful she will follow through on her commitment to the
property rights of Connecticut
citizens. Tom Lacey New London
860/917-8649
**********
Dear Governor Rell: I attended today's press conference on
eminent domain abuse and would like to ask your help in saving the homes in New London from this
abuse. The eminent domain issue is an important one for me, the citizens of Connecticut and the U.S.A. My properties are currently
under the threat of eminent domain in Derby
for "economic growth". I can't begin to tell
you the stress and tension we feel as our lives have been placed on hold and
our futures in question for years now. It is UN-American to let governments
take private property to give to someone else to profit and taking away our
futures under the guise of public benefit. Let free enterprise do its job.
There are no fair negotiations when one party doesn't and wont
play by fair business practices. Please let the people of this great state
actually own their property without this dark cloud hanging over our heads.
Give the people of New London
a stay of execution and then set a moratorium against eminent domain for
economic development until new laws can be passed.
Thank You for all your support on this very important issue.
Sincerely, Carl
Yacobacci Derby, CT. 203-668-6597