This American Daily Article writes:

In an unfortunate, but all too foreseeable event, the justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court, those stalwarts of individual liberty, decided that eminent domain should not be limited to merely public use of the land, but should now be expanded to the furtherance of a city’s economic plan.

Sadly, that has become a recent trend in the use (or rather abuse) of eminent domain. The details of the case are:

In Kelo v. City of New London, the plaintiffs were owners of various properties in the city of New London, an area that was targeted to be “revitalized” under a city development plan. 2002 WL 32372999 (Conn.) (soon to be recorded in the Atlantic reporter, second series) In conjunction with a city established development corporation, the plaintiffs were approached to sell their property in furtherance of this goal of rejuvenating the city. This proposal was underway because New London had recently experienced “serious employment declines”, much of which was attributable to the loss of 1900 government sector jobs. Id. at 4.

When the plaintiffs still refused to sell their properties, the government created development corporation, in October 2000, voted to use eminent domain to acquire the property from those refusing to sell. By November 2000, the development corporation began condemnation proceedings on those unwilling sellers.

It should be mentioned that the development corporation will own the area scheduled for development, but lease certain lands to private developers in order to carry out their plans. To add insult to injury, the court records state that one such developer, Corcoran Jennison, is in the midst of negotiations with the city on a ninety-nine year lease on three of the parcels for the staggering amount of $1 per year. Kelo at 3. In turn, the development corporation is forecasting the revitalization plan to create 518-867 construction jobs, 718-1362 direct jobs, and 500-940 indirect jobs, while producing between $680,544 – $1,249,843 in property taxes, all this despite 50% of the land area expected to be tax exempt. Id.

Another case of taking from one private party to give use to another private party.

Posted in Eminent Domain on August 23rd, 2004 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |