Gov Forces Withdrawal of Eviction Notices of Kelo Homeowners:
This may be symbolic, but it is now reported that the Connecticut Governor has used the leverage of threatening to withhold state money for the New London development to force a rescission of the eviction notices reported last week. The politics around this issue continue to remain interesting:
But the dispute re-energized calls for a statutory moratorium on land-takings until the General Assembly can agree on how to permanently limit the use of eminent domain - suddenly a potent political issue for the 2006 gubernatorial and legislative races.
House Republicans launched a petition drive Friday to force a special session on eminent domain, a possibility since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Fort Trumbull takings in June.
On the other hand, "consensus and inspiration are fleeting," that would show that there are a lot fewer people who think Kelo was outrageous than it previously appeared.
When the litigants who took this to the Supreme Court said it was the principle, perhaps it was just the money. Just a way to up the ante.
I could be wrong, but I have yet to see any actual New London house owned by Kelo or a neighbor with some actual owner in the front yard telling a tale about the house being in the family for 100 years, lots of idiosyncratic value, etc.
It was about both principle and money. The principle is that private transfers should be between a willing seller and a willing buyer at a mutually agreed price. Eminent domain short-circuits that process by preventing the seller from including subjective value in the price.
The halt on the eviction procedures forces the NLDC to negotiate on an equal basis with the "homeowners." If the NLDC can meet the price that the "owners" think is fair, everyone wins.
Of course, but in what proportion? 90% money and 10% principle, at least based on on my experience with ED cases in CA. I suggest looking with a gimlet eye at any real supposed concerns with idiosyncratic value. Like emotional distress, it is easy to manufacture and hard or impossible to prove objectively.
"The principle is that private transfers should be between a willing seller and a willing buyer at a mutually agreed price."
This has not been the law for decades. It is a convenient "hook" to argue for more money. I doubt that the actual homeowners cared about anything above more money. Now that the state has backed out, I have not seen any homeowner say he wants to buy his house back. Have you?
"Eminent domain short-circuits that process by preventing the seller from including subjective value in the price."
Ok, in theory. In practice, I doubt it. Homeowner hires top quality counsel (at government expense), top appraiser (at government expense) and gets to bring the case to a jury. Our litigation experience in CA is that governments and developers get charged "off the chart" amounts, once all the transaction costs and delays are factored in. That is why they use ED as a last resort. So the theoretical problem is not a real problem, I think. A good claimant will get far more than reasonable fair market value, by leveraging the process (giving the developer certainty and swiftness in exchange for more money).
"The halt on the eviction procedures forces the NLDC to negotiate on an equal basis with the "homeowners.""
Ok, but look at what prices were proposed by NLDC compared to what the jury awarded. If there was "lowballing" under objective standards, I have not heard it raised as an issue.
Keep in mind the idiosyncratic value is (when the rubber meets the road) simply what some contingent fee lawyer thinks he or she can get out of the case. Lawyers can demand idiotic sums. Should that preclude any and all development unless it is for what some interest group calls a sufficently public purpose? If it is ok to ignore idiosyncracy for a business defendant, why not also for a private home defendant? What difference does it make to me if I am to sell my home whether it is for (a) a stadium built with public funds (for use by the local pro baseball team) as opposed to (b) a toll road built with private funds and used by the public?
Maybe I am unduly biased in favor of development, but I have a hard time getting any heartburn about Kelo homeowners who are a) fully paid and b) not clamoring now to have their houses back.
[Oh yes, there's enough left of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits government from seizing property "without just compensation" so the homeowners will be paid. But what consolation will that be to 87-year-old Wilhelmina Dery, who lives with her husband of six decades in the house where she was born, and wants to stay there? ]
As for homeowners who sold "clamoring to get their houses back," they can't; New London bulldozed them, as soon as it took title, so the neighborhood would be destroyed and that would put more pressure on the remaining homeowners to sell. It got ugly out there.
As to hold-out pricing, why is that a bad thing? The original homeowner will get to share in the increased value of his land. The homeowner will have been lucky (or savvy) enough to have bought land someone else really, really wants. And if the homeowner pushes the price too high, the developer can always walk away or build around.
They say the demands are being made even though an eviction order from last week has been rescinded. It had been issued by the semi-public New London Development Corp. and had told the homeowners to move out in the next 30 to 90 days and pay $600 a month in rent while they continue to occupy the premises.
An attorney for NLDC, which wants to demolish the homes to make room for private development, had told the homeowners' attorney last year that the city, for which NLDC has acted as an agent, expects to collect the occupancy fees.
Of course it's about the money. Otherwise the municipality wouldn't be trying to replace the existing properties with higher-priced ones.
It prevents progress? It elevates the individual too much at the expense of the community? It is selfish? It is materialistic, encouraging the individual to "fall in love" with his or her assets (rather than people)? Seems like every civilized country recognizes ED rights. US has had ED since it became a country.
"And if the homeowner pushes the price too high, the developer can always walk away or build around." True, but that is not the way it has been done for centuries. If homeowner was not using the roads (supported by ED) and enjoying defense at community expense, if homeowner was living as a cave person in a state of nature, maybe he or she would have a persuasive point. But we all benefit from ED steps that have occurred (or been bargained around) over the years. A bit hypocritical to say now it must stop, because it is my house that must go.
Private/public use distinction went out the window with railroads. Not sure I see any good reason for bringing it back. For example, if schools are best built and run by private entities, charter programs and the like, why tie the hands of the localities and say no ED for charter schools?
If the city needs a road, fine, force people out. A road's gotta go where a road's gotta go. A railroad has to go in one of only a few spaces, and can't wander too much.
But if Pfizer needs more office space, I don't see how the balance of interests tips in favor of Pfizer and against a homeowner who doesn't want to sell (or who wants to increase the price to take advantage of Pfizer's desire to build right there).
On a related note, if the Republicans who say they're anti-Kelo really want to make a difference (as opposed to just grandstand), they should lean on Pfizer. Pfizer always wants something out of Congress. Congressional leaders could tell Pfizer to tell the New London folks that Pfizer won't put its building on land cleared by eminent domain.
Youngstown State University is proposing a new building across from my familie's property. They want a one block road from their property to the building and my property is in the path. There is no foot or auto traffic now in the area. There are several other land owners that do not want to sell as they are firmly established in the area. The private company proposing the project says they will only condem for "roads", so they propose a "road". the only possible benifit to the University would be a better view of their building. The new building is fronted on a road, and there is already roads close, 200 feet, on one side, and another road a little further on the other side of the proposed building. Please help my family and other land owners in Youngstown and Ohio.