Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

EMINENT DOMAIN continues to remain unresolved by Connecticut�s Legislature. Homeowners in New London and elsewhere throughout Connecticut continue to live in fear that they could lose their homes to eminent domain.� Suzette Kelo, a woman of fortitude, has courageously led the battle to protect homeowners throughout the nation from government seizure of their properties, and yet, she and her neighbors lives in a state of flux not knowing if the State will pass laws to allow them to remain in their homes.�� Unlike Connecticut�s Legislature, other State legislatures throughout the country are being proactive and protecting their constituents from the rich, powerful and politically influential from taking possession of their homes.� The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations continues to call for a Constitutional Convention to resolve the issue of Eminent Domain, and most importantly, voters have an opportunity in November, 2006 to remove Connecticut legislators from office who fail to protect their property rights.��

The following Tax Talk issue is a review of the old and new on Connecticut�s most impacting issue � EMINENT DOMAIN.�

**********

The Castle Coalition, Citizens Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse

http://www.castlecoalition.org/

**********

New London: Still Inept, March 21, 2006, Hartford Courant, Rich Green

You'd think New London would have learned something after it was universally denounced last summer when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the city's plan to seize private property and build a shiny new waterfront.� Continued at the following website:� http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctrgreen0321.artmar21,0,4822210.column

**********

�One New London� emerged as a result of the Supreme Court Decision on Eminent Domain.� Two of their members were elected to the local New London Legislative body this past November.��

Today, One New London�s website http://www.onenewlondon.org/� included the following:� Over this past weekend One New London finalized a resolution for Fort Trumbull that One New London councilors Frink and Cornish will propose at the April 3rd city council meeting. It is: 1. Move the remaining houses not in parcel 4a to parcel 4a. 2. Return the titles to the property owners. 3. Property owners pay their back taxes from June 2005. 4. Property owners agree to no future lawsuits. Please refer to their website for further information on this proposal.��

**********

Eminent Domain, Associated Press

March 19, 2006, Associated Press
The S.C. House gave final approval Thursday to two bills that limit the power of governments to take property, and require compensation for property owners if zoning changes or other regulatory action reduce land's value. One bill would put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in November, and the other specifies how the law would change.

**********

Attached is the March 17, 2006 Statement by Scott Bullock, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice, Before the Connecticut Legislature�s Judiciary Committee on the following Bills:� Raised Bill 665, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/TOB/S/2006SB-00665-R00-SB.htm and Raised Bill 5810 http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/TOB/H/2006HB-05810-R00-HB.htm .��

The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet tomorrow, March 21, and to date their Agenda has not been published.�

**********

New London Day Article on aforementioned Judiciary Hearing

Proposed Tweaks to Eminent Domain Debated, State Lawmakers Weight Reforms for Existing Law, Ted Mann, 3/18/2006

Hartford � The General Assembly took another step toward reforming Connecticut's laws on the seizure of private property Friday, as two committees debated new proposed restrictions on the use of eminent domain for economic development.� The Planning and Development Committee unanimously approved a bill that would add new procedural requirements to any seizure of private property, increase the minimum compensation for condemned property to at least 150 percent of the market value, and require a majority vote of at least two-thirds of any legislative body that moves to take property for economic development purposes.

Friday was the development committee's deadline to favorably report legislation to the floor in the current session, which is scheduled to conclude May 3. In the Judiciary Committee, lawmakers heard testimony on two more reform proposals, one of which would eliminate the use of economic development as a justification for property seizures, earning glowing reviews from lawmakers opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, which kicked off drives to rein in government takings power in statehouses across the country. "Raised Bill 5018 gets the job done," House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward, R-North Branford, said in the sparsely attended committee hearing.� That bill would prohibit the use of eminent domain where its sole public purpose is economic development, as it was at Fort Trumbull in New London, where properties were condemned by the quasi-public New London Development Corp. to make way for a complex of housing, offices and a hotel, conceived in consultation with Pfizer Inc. It also would create a property rights ombudsman, appointed by the governor, who would be tasked with resolving disputes over eminent domain takings and advising affected residents of their rights to appeal and redress in the courts.� That bill drew praise from others who have been largely critical of the legislature's reform proposals so far.� The proposal is "solid eminent domain reform legislation," said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the nonprofit Institute for Justice, which represented the Kelo plaintiffs before the Supreme Court.�� Bullock, in written testimony submitted to the committee, said the bill would eliminate the legal provision used to condemn houses and businesses at Fort Trumbull while simultaneously tightening the legal definition of blight, to "help ensure that blight elimination is not used as a backdoor way to gain property simply for private commercial development."� But as in previous appearances before the committee, Ward was subjected to skeptical questioning from some committee members, including its co-chairman, Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, who are loath to entirely eliminate a development tool that urban municipal leaders maintain is essential to rebuilding and strengthening struggling cities and towns.� The tougher bill, HB-5810, was strongly denounced by lobbyists for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, who called its restrictions on eminent domain usage excessive and the creation of an ombudsman an ill-advised increase in state bureaucracy.�� McDonald questioned whether a state-owned affordable housing development that is privately managed under a long-term lease would be illegal under the stiffer reform proposal, and argued that the "bright line" between private and public uses might be harder to draw than Ward was suggesting, as in the case of a municipality condemning land for use by a hospital.

Ward dismissed both scenarios as unlikely.� "Usually, with eminent domain, we lose housing for poor folks. We don't create it," Ward said.�� "That seems to be what's happening in New London," he added, a reference to the municipal development plan that calls for high-end rental and condominium housing in what was once a decidedly modest middle-class neighborhood.� Both the Judiciary and Planning and Development committees have raised bills taking the sterner reform approach favored by the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice, while also drafting more modest reform bills that would add procedural safeguards and boost compensation levels, but not eliminate economic development takings outright.�� While politicians in other states and in the U.S. House of Representatives have leaped to revise eminent domain law in the months since the Kelo decision, the state that spawned the controversy has taken a more cautious tack, said Larry Morandi, an analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures.� Of the 42 states that have been or are in session this year, 41 have considered some form of eminent domain reform legislation, Morandi said. The 42nd, Delaware, passed a bill last year in response to the Kelo case.�� Legislators in six states have passed bills since January, and in South Dakota a reform proposal has become law. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson vetoed another.� Most states have moved to prohibit takings where the sole purpose is economic development or increasing a local tax base, Morandi said, but Connecticut has not been as aggressive.� "I don't see those specific prohibitions that I see in other legislation," he said. "The tone is different."� Morandi said a similar bill was passed in Utah last year, before the Kelo decision was announced.� "This is not new," Morandi said, but the Connecticut proposal is unusual in that it specifically restricts the power of development agencies, not just municipalities. Had it been law, he said, it would have prevented the Fort Trumbull project from going forward.� In an�� interview after his committee completed its work, Rep. Lewis Wallace, D-Danbury, said he expected to work with the Judiciary Committee leaders once all the reform proposals had reached the floor to hammer out a compromise.� It was clear Friday, however, that compromise could be difficult to achieve, amid lasting concern that calls to reform were little more than superficial.�� As Tony Fappiano of the� Connecticut Association of Realtors echoed Ward in praising the more restrictive proposal in the Judiciary Committee, he was challenged by Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, who demanded to know "where in either of these bills is there a protection for private property owners."� "If you don't like the Kelo case, you should not like these bills," Meyer said. Moments later, he added: "I agree with one thing you said today. That is that this is a good public relations bill."

**********

John Durrand is to be commended for his pro active approach to the eminent domain issue as noted below. Senator Guglielmo did indeed pursue John's proposals as was evidenced by the letters which John had attached.

John Durrand, JohnD@leed-himmel.com

Tolland Taxpayers Association

Subject:� Eminent Domain and Other Issues

Feb 9, 2006

Susan, First I'd like to thank you and applaud you for organizing the breakfast meeting which introduced the consortium. We have Mike on the agenda for the Feb. 14th Tolland Town Council meeting. Next, as I mentioned at the breakfast meeting, I discussed the eminent domain issue with our State Senator, Tony and introduced the concept of a poison pill clause for ANY future legislation. This would be in the form of a 1.5 to 1.75 times fair market value payment for any confiscated property. The idea is that I feel this law will not go away, however, it should be only a LAST RESORT, and this clause is intended to assure that it is used only as a LAST RESORT. � Tony embraced the idea and has written to the Senate legal staff to have this brought up to the Republican caucus. � Thank you again for all your efforts.� John Durand,� Tolland Taxpayers Association

**********

The following is a Presentation to the State Legislature�s Planning & Development Committee offered by Susan Kniep, President of FCTO, on February 15, 2006.��

�

EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE STATE�S CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organization, Inc. is an umbrella organization for taxpayers and taxpayer groups throughout Connecticut.�� The oldest taxpayer group in Connecticut reigns from New Britain, a member sits on our Board of Directors,� and last year the Connecticut Property Owners Association of New Britain celebrated its 75^th year.� Yet, as much as taxpayers decry property taxes,� no tax related issue has drawn as much public outcry as the issue of Eminent Domain.�� A man�s home is his castle.� It is not the bricks and mortar but the heart and soul of families which government is trampling on when they take possession of private property from one and give to another.�� The legislation before you does not prohibit the transfer of property from one private property owner to another based on financial gain.�� It does not protect private property owners or businesses from those who are richer and more powerful from taking possession of what is rightfully theirs.�� As eminent domain affects every man, woman and child now and in the future, this issue should not be determined by a vote of the legislature but instead by a vote of the public.� For this reason, The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations is calling upon you to place this matter before the voter through a Constitutional Convention.�� In November, 2006, the State legislature is mandated to place before the voters of Connecticut, the following question:� �Shall there be a Constitutional Convention� to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?�� If the majority of Connecticut citizens vote in the affirmative, within one year the General Assembly must assemble a convention. Proposed amendments or revisions to our State constitution must then be submitted to Connecticut voters at referendum.�� As our State does not afford its citizens the right to petition our state government for reform, this is an important vehicle which Connecticut voters have to enforce true reform in our State on matters such as Eminent Domain.�� As such, the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. requests that our State legislature adopt an amendment to our Constitution to protect the citizens of our state from the abusive powers of Eminent Domain.� ��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 recent supreme court decision on Eminent Domain 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 enriches 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 are financed by taxpayer dollars, and which have limited accountability to the public. ��And there are conflicts among you.� Senator Bill Finch who represents Bridgeport, Monroe and Trumbull has frequently appeared before you espousing the virtues of Eminent Domain.�� And, of course, he would.� Eminent domain is his bread and butter so to speak as he heads the Bridgeport Economic Development Corporation, BEDCO, as its President.� As noted by Joseph Quinn, Chief Legal Counsel for Senate Democrats, �BEDCO is an affiliate agency of the Bridgeport Regional Business Council and obtains land through eminent domain�..�� BEDCO is not only financed by state taxpayer dollars, but as the Attorney states, �a portion of the grant is credited to Senator Finch�s salary.�� Now I have to ask, in this age of improving ethical standards in our State, how is this possible?�� At the time the attorney wrote this letter in 2004 to the State�s Ethics Commission, Finch was also the Chairperson of the Banks Committee and Vice Chairperson of the Labor, Planning and Development, and Transportation Committees according to the attorney, whose letter was written to the State Ethics Commission, which gave its stamp of approval to Finch.� The Federation will ask that this matter be looked at again.� If Finch is allowed to be employed by an entity which relies on state taxpayer dollars to fund all or a portion of his salary, and all or a portion of their business operations, something is wrong and our existing laws need to be changed.� But in the meantime, the aforementioned is a prime example of what the public is confronted with when we deal with the issue of Eminent Domain being determined by our State legislature.� This issue clearly should rest with the public who should not be denied their vote as guaranteed through a Constitutional Convention.�� Reflecting upon John Adams� words, our forefathers never intended for Americans to be forced to relinquish their property so that others would prosper as suggested by the Supreme Court in their recent findings on the landmark Kelo v. New London case.�� As such, in reflecting upon the words of John Adams, our liberties and the sanctity of our property rights must be secured within Connecticut�s constitution.� Our constitution should enforce a prohibition on any government body from seizing, by eminent domain, private property for the purpose of transferring ownership from one private party to another for financial gain or for any other reason.�� We encourage all Connecticut citizens who are concerned that they could be impacted by the recent Supreme Court decision on Eminent Domain to join with FCTO.� We ask that they contact their State legislators to impress upon them the necessity to cement within our Constitution the protection of their private property rights from government seizure.��

**********

Senate to consider eminent domain, By Diana M. Alba Santa Fe Bureau, Feb 13, 2006, 06:00 am� SANTA FE -- A measure limiting the power of governments to seize land using eminent domain gained unanimous support in the House on Saturday.� The bill would prevent land from being seized from a private owner in order to promote private or commercial development.� http://www.daily-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060213/NEWS01/602130316/1001

**********

Pennsylvania Senate Passes Eminent Domain Reform, Written By: James Hoare, Published In: Environment News Publication Date: February 1, 2006, Publisher: The Heartland Institute ,� The Pennsylvania Senate on December 7 passed eminent domain reform legislation significantly curtailing the ability of state and local government to condemn private property for non-public uses. The bill, S.B. 881, the Property Rights Protection Act, responds to the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London and the widespread abuse of eminent domain throughout the state. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18436

**********

House OKs eminent domain limits, 1/27/06, by Niki Kelly, The Journal Gazette INDIANAPOLIS � Lawmakers hopped on the anti-eminent domain bandwagon Thursday, voting unanimously in the House to restrict the use of condemnation for private profit. Hoosiers have shown more concern over the use of eminent domain since a key U.S. Supreme Court decision came down last year http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/13726338.htm

**********

40 States Re-Examining Eminent Domain By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer Sun Feb 5, 5:49 PM ET� LONG BRANCH, N.J. - The city wants Anna DeFaria's home, and if she doesn't sell willingly, officials are going to take it from the 80-year-old retired pre-school teacher.�� Continued at the following website:� http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1583033

**********

Battle over property rights goes on, despite ruling, A mediator will decide if homes in New London, Conn., will be razed to make way for private development. By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor USA > Society & Culture from the January 04, 2006 edition - The moment of truth is yet to arrive in the now-famous Fort Trumbull neighborhood in New London, Conn.�� Six months after the US Supreme Court ruled that the city could seize and demolish private homes to make way for a commercial development project, determined residents are still living in their homes in the targeted neighborhood.� Continued at the following website:� http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p02s01-ussc.html

**********

BB&T won`t lend for projects under eminent domain, January 25, 2006 09:56:22 (ET)NEW YORK, Jan 25 (Reuters) - BB&T Corp. (BBT,Trade), a large U.S. southeast bank, on Wednesday said it will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build projects on land taken from private citizens through eminent domain.� The policy change by the Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based bank follows a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision last June.� In a 5-4 ruling, the court upheld the taking by New London, Connecticut of 15 properties for a project to complement a research facility by Pfizer Inc. (PFE,Trade). The taking was intended to help revitalize a depressed local economy.� "The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided," BB&T Chief Executive John Allison said in a statement. "In fact, it's just plain wrong." Continued at� this website � http://www.bbandt.com/about/media/newsreleasedetail.asp?date=1%2F25%2F06+9%3A48%3A52+AM

**********

Jury finds middle ground in Halper dispute, Eminent Domain News on a family homestead which had been in the family since 1922 �.Home News Tribune Online 01/27/06, By RICK MALWITZ, STAFF WRITER, rmalwitz@thnt.com� - MIDDLESEX COUNTY � A Superior Court jury weighed arguments between Piscataway Township and the Halpers over the value of their family farm and found the middle ground yesterday, placing the value of the 75 acres at $17.995 million. The township argued the Cornell Dairy Farm at Metlars Lane and South Washington Road was worth $13.6 million. The family argued it was worth $22.6 million. "In short the jury split the difference," said Mayor Brian Wahler.�� Continued at the following website:� http://thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060127/NEWS/601270463&SearchID=73233817120436

**********

Fracas over home seizures moves to states, By Warren Richey, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Thu Dec 15, 3:00 AM ET, WASHINGTON - When the US Supreme Court ruled in June that private homes may be seized to make room for commercial development projects, the decision ignited a firestorm of criticism. Outraged property-rights activists said the 5-to-4 opinion in Kelo v. New London would render homes and businesses nationwide vulnerable to government land-grabs to foster economic revitalization. Some ranked it among the high court's worst decisions, calling it this generation's Dred Scott.� Continued at the following website �.� http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20051215/ts_csm/adomain_1

**********

Connecticut Attorney General's (Blumenthal)Office, Press Release, Attorney General Praises U.S. Supreme Court Decision In New London Eminent Domain Case, June 23, 2005 "In upholding the city's eminent domain authority, the court has established a national precedent and sent a message that local officials should have the power to determine whether and how private property may serve the public interest.� "I am pleased that the court has agreed with the position taken by my office and the city of New London, vindicating long-established eminent domain principles. The paramount principle is that local officials -- and not the courts -- should determine whether the taking of property serves a significant public interest. The court correctly concluded that New London's plan will have appreciable benefits for the community that are critical to the city's economic future." Continued at the following website:� http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=2341&Q=303590

**********

Click on Some Interesting Research from the

State of Connecticut Office of Legislative Research on

EMINENT DOMAIN STATUTES

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0578.htm

EMINENT DOMAIN BILL, LCO NO. 23

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0735.htm

EMINENT DOMAIN BILL, LCO NO. 24

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0734.htm

EMINENT DOMAIN BILL, LCO NO. 32

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0761.htm

EMINENT DOMAIN BILL, LCO NO. 33