Tom Blumer reports that in the end Susette Kelo saved her house, but not her land. Her house will be spared and physically relocated to another parcel of land. As for the other remaining family that refused to move:
While Kelo’s agreement today signifies her deep attachment to her home, the agreement reached with the other remaining homeowner, the Cristofaros, reflects the family’s deep affiliation with the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, where they have lived for over 30 years. Although the Cristofaros will lose their current home, under the agreement, the City and the NLDC have agreed to support an application for more housing in Fort Trumbull, and the Cristofaro family has an exclusive right to purchase one of the homes at a fixed price. Moreover, a plaque will be installed in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to commemorate the loss of family matriarch Margherita Cristofaro, who passed away while the battle against eminent domain abuse occurred in New London.
Tom sums up his final observations on the settlement:
I’d like to think that the fact that the city and the NLDC, armed as they were with their deeper-pocket legal advantage and even a Supreme Court ruling, were in the end still not able to simply roll over everyone involved, will give some comfort and encouragement to those resisting countless eminent-domain actions around the country. But it would be dangerous to think that the holdouts could have salvaged what they did without Governor Rell’s intervention. True, a referendum appeared to be headed for the ballot in New London, but how binding it would have been is at least somewhat debatable. The lesson for others trying to keep the eminent-domain monster at bay is that until meaningful legislation takes effect, the help of sympathetic politicians who follow through on their commitments will be essential to achieving any kind of success.
Mike Cristofaro is right, that the struggle against the tyranny of extra-constitutional eminent domain is far from over. I personally don’t think we’ll see a definitive end to it without either defining legislation from Congress or a Supreme Court reversal.
If more people took that route, eminent domain would be less popular a technique.
Are you saying that governments will be unwilling to shoot or siege someone in order to complete an eminent domain acquisition? Or that somehow a single rifle will be able to hold off all the firepower that can be brought to bear, against a house the government plans to demolish anyway?
Can you point me to a report of any instances where this actually worked? In my recollection, it generally ends up with a dead or arrested rifleman.
Realism, most likely. While seizing granny's house to put up a Wal-Mart is clearly wrong and an abuse of government power, just as often it's some blighted row of crime-ridden cardboard apartments or a trailer park being cleared to revitalize downtown. Do you want to be the guy who kicked out some stubborn old biddy to rescue the heart of the city or do you want to be the nincompoop who didn't do a damn thing about the worst neighborhood in the very heart of the city? Kinda like Ted Kennedy and wind power; the right thing's all well and good until it's your ass on the line.
Unfortunately, "blight removal" is often just a cynical means for the government to achieve its economic-development ends. Take a look at these properties that have been blighted and answer whether they are part of the "worst neighborhood" or if they are economic development by another name:
One day I will figure how to link properly. Trying again:
blight?
http://www.castlecoalition.org
/CastleWatch/bogusblight/index.html