I never said it was poor people being oppressed. I would feel the same if the houses were owned by millionaires and the city wanted to condemn it to build a Buckingham Palace-type home for the multi-billionaires.
Once private property rights mean nothing, we can kiss the whole shebang goodbye. I’m just glad the state gov’ts are stepping up to the plate now to shore up current eminent domain laws.
Still, I think the city has a lot of gall demanding back rent. YMMV, of course.
That may be a little over the top for me. No one is suggesting that property rights mean nothing, merely that sometimes the interest of the community outweighs the individual balanced by fair market value payment to the individual. The individual can then buy a comparable property elsewhere. Notwithstanding all the gnashing of teeth going on about this decision, this country was not founded on some wacky libertarian absolutist view of property rights.
I’m not going to argue eminent domain here. That’s been discussed elsewhere. My main point here is that the city council seems bound and determined to add insult to injury.
Well if the taking was for the benefit of the community, and the community had to wait five years to be vindicated in the court don’t the residents who deprived the community of that benefit owe the community something?
You’re coming from the premise that it was right for New London to confiscate that private property to give it to a private developer. I disagree with that stance. If they confiscated it to build a road or school, then that’s a just use of eminient domain. IMHO, eminent domain was abused in this case, SCOTUS notwithstanding. Remember, SCOTUS has handed down bad decisions before. They are not infallible.
So, you and I probably will not agree on this matter.
Fair enough. I hope you realize that I have not argued the SCOTUS was correct.
It boils down to the almightly dollar Ivy. New London City Council supports the NLDC, the NLDC (whose members include some of the wealthiest real estate tycoons and builders in the nation) supports the growth of New London to be the next major hub between New York and Boston. Don’t forget New London is exactly 100 miles from each.
Yes, I did see that. But you seem to be undecided, and I am most decidedly decided in this matter. 
But the question before the court was wether economic development was of the same importance as a new hospital or freeway. AFAIK, the decision in this case is precedent. There was a serious question about the city being able to do what they did, and it has only recently been solved. IOW, the city started the process 5 years ago, but it is only moving forward now. IANAL, but I can’t imagine that punitive treatment of the residents accomplishes anything. No amount of money that gets rung from the citizens is going to turn the clock back.
askeptic: How about the general principle that people should not be punished for exercising their rights? The residents sued to stop the siezues because it was not clear that the city’s actions were legal. (The fact that this case went all the way to the Supreme Court proves that.) The property’s status was in limbo for five years. It didn’t belong to the city until SCOTUS said it did. Common law usually says that the status quo is preserved while any legal battles are resolved.
Plus, there’s the little fact that renting property usually involves a contract. People have to agree to pay rent.
Excercising my powers of Enema Domain, I’m grabbing this thread by the ass and moving it to…
Great Debates. Sounds like an interesting discussion can be had there.
If I may make a request, I’d like this not to turn into a debate over eminent domain. I think we’ve fully explored that subject. I’d like to discuss whether or not the city is entitled to “back rent.”
Being from NL I say no. The city is not entitled to back rent. Before Pfizer went in, the area of Fort Trumbull was getting quite dilapitated.
Here is a wonderful pic illustrating the exact area we’re talking about. Fort Trumbull being in the middle all the way to the left. Pfizer global headquarters being the 4 large buildings at the top and the neighborhood in question being smack dab in between them.
Prime real estate for wealthy developers and conglomerates.
Nope. The title was in question for five years.
If people today had a tenth the spine of our Founders, the politicians responsible for this would be tarred, feathered, and dragged out of town on a rope.
Assertion not in evidence.
Again, I say that if the answer does not involve tar, feathers, and/or rope, the Republic has rotted from the inside out.
The area is “blighted” according to the definition of that term used to justify the land grab. The same folks also recently increased the chocolate ration to twenty grams (from twenty-five).
The “sometimes” is spelled out in the plain language of the Constitution – public USE. Not theft from Peter to give to Paul.
I don’t see any way to disentangle the two questions. The fact that the initial seizure was, at best, dubious (a point that arises from the general eminent domain debate) is the fundamental reason why the demand for back rent is outrageous.
Its like Gaza isn’t it?
