In July 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Kelo v. New London, essentially saying that a local government could execute an eminent domain taking against a private property holder for the purposes of giving that property over to a 3rd private party so that a development could be done that might generate more taxable revenue than with the original owner. In short, they said that higher projected tax revenues constituted a “public use” under the 5th Amendment. Anyone who’s read this blog for that long knows that I strongly disagreed with that decision and I continue to consider it the worst miscarriage of justice the Supreme Court has perpetrated in my lifetime. (Thus far.) The issue I had with the decision, primarily, was that it rested upon the notion of giving someone else the private property of a given owner on the basis that it would generate high tax revenues. Unlike a road, a bridge, or a school (the usual projects for which eminent domain has been used), tax revenue is never guaranteed. If we take a man’s property to build a road and we perform that construction, then there’s definitely going to be a road where we built it. We can build exactly what we have in mind in the case of Kelo and it might still not generate the tax revenue.
In a pathetic end to an already sad tale, we now find out that Pfizer isn’t even going to build what they said they would. The project is now an absolute bust. Via Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air:
Five Supreme Court justices ruled that the seizure of private property from several residents of New London, Connecticut to make way for a new site owned by pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer met the test of “public use” for eminent domain. A decade after New London took homes away from its citizens to sell the land to a private corporation, Pfizer has decided it doesn’t want the facility after all, adding a fitting coda to a chapter of governmental abuse:
In going over my previous writings on the matter, I found this post that I wrote a year after the decision. While vacationing up near New London, I read on the front page of New London’s own local newspaper that the last of the homeowners involved in the Kelo case had settled with the City. The article mentioned something I found especially irritating. One of the property owners in the case was Pasquale Cristofaro, an Italian immigrant who had come to New London in 1962. The city decided they needed a new sea wall where Cristofaro’s house was standing at the time and they executed an eminent domain proceeding against him. They took his house and Cristofaro had to move.
The sea wall was never built. At the time, I wrote:
Read that line again: “The city seized that house in the 1970s for a protective sea wall, never built…”
That’s right – this man’s had his property removed once before. In that case, the seizure was for a sea wall, a justifiable public good. The fact that it was never built is an insult but that’s nothing like seizing his current home for a private developer who may or may not generate additional tax revenues with whatever business is planned.
And now, it’s happened again. Once again this man has had his property taken by the state and, once again, they have failed to follow through with actually building what they said it was so vital to build that they needed to evict him from his own home. The ineptitude with which New London applies eminent domain should warrant the removal of that ability from them. It should most certainly serve as an example and a reminder to other localities that it’s a strategy to be used only in the most dire of circumstances and, once implemented, places upon the government the onus of follow-through.
New London owes this man an abject apology and, if he’s chosen to remain a local resident, and iron-clad guarantee that they’ll never do it to him again. Ever. Honor demands it.
November 11th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Eminent Domain, Human Interest, Law, Politics |
2 comments
There’s an interesting story in the recent edition of the Loudoun Times-Mirror regarding a building I was aware of but haven’t seen for a long time. As you ride westbound on Route 7 out of Tyson’s Corner, you’ll pass into Loudoun very close to Dranesville. The section of Route 7 right there at the county line has a retail presence that includes an “outdoor” mall, some restaurants, a car dealership – and 1 classic case of urban blight.
The building, detailed in this story, used to be an Exxon gas station. I recall seeing it when it was open and I recall seeing the station close down and the building go up on the market. Shortly after that, my job location changed and I quit traveling that section of road, but it’s been 5 or 6 years since then. The last time I passed by there was several months ago and I recall thinking to myself that I was amazed no one had fired up another business in that building, situated as it is. Apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks so:
With its cracked parking lot, torn siding and gaping holes, this shoe-box-shaped building along Route 7 has sat empty for at least five years, and Erica Laufer of Potomac Falls wants to know why.
“How many more years must we be greeted by this eyesore shell when entering LoCo?” she asked in a postcard mailed to county officials and the media.
The property is at 47000 Harry Byrd Highway, across from the Sugarland Crossing Shopping Center, and squeezed between Saturn of Sterling and Mattress Discounters.
It turns out that Erica Laufer is the only person who actually put in a complaint about the building, and she’s got a point. More to my point, however, is that with all the talk about eminent domain that’s gone on since the Kelo v. New London decision it’s fascinating that a property that has truly taken on a blight condition is allowed to stand in full view of what is arguably the county’s busiest road. And just why is it that it is allowed to remain this way? Pretty simple: the county’s Board of Supervisors have never implemented the process that would allow them to remove the building:
Properties like this, and the dozens of foreclosed or abandoned homes sitting empty and unkempt across Loudoun, point to a void in Loudoun government: a spot blight abatement program.
Unlike Fairfax County, which has had this program in place since 1996, Loudoun does not have the authority to acquire an abandoned property through eminent domain and have it torn down or renovated at the owner’s expense.
Keith Fairfax, Loudoun’s zoning enforcement manager, said state law allows Loudoun to enact its own program to rid the county of unsightly properties. But, “because [blight] really hasn’t been that big of an issue” in Loudoun, he said, county leaders have not done so.
Sounds like something the BoS should put on their schedules, and pretty blasted quickly. If you’d like to put in a word to them you can visit this page and send your Supervisor (or the whole board) a request.
I’m an advocate for the very, very careful use of eminent domain and I would absolutely not suggest using it to pull a non-blighted property from 1 owner and giving it to another, as was done in Kelo case. I’m not even suggesting that this property be confiscated from the legal owners – yet - but they should be required to maintain the property so it doesn’t start to look like… well, an abandoned property. Like it looks now. If the owners can’t or don’t want to either sell the property or get a business going in it, then they should be given a choice. Either maintain the building and the lot in keeping with the other businesses in that line of buildings or take it down, tear up the parking lot, and plant some trees. If they’d rather put up a privacy fence that they will then maintain, I could live with that but that building would have to come down.
In any case, the BoS should move to give itself the tools necessary to apply the pressure these owners so clearly need to have applied.
July 12th, 2007
Posted by
ricjames |
Human Interest, Virginia Politics |
no comments
So, NYC’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided to leave the GOP and become a… well, he’s “unaffiliated.”
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the GOP for his first mayoral run, said the change in voter registration does not mean he is running for president.
“Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city,” he said in a statement.
He’s an open-borders apologist who claims that America’s economy will collapse without illegals flooding our job market. He’s working his butt off to do an end run around the 2nd Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act by suing gun dealers he illegally “investigated” well outside of his jurisdiction. Does that sound even remotely like a Republican?
As for leadership, I’ll point once again to the little vigilante squad he sent out of state to perform illegal straw purchases. What, there’s not enough investigatory work in New York City? And if this was a legitimate investigation, why did he send contracted private eyes? Why didn’t he said NYPD detectives? What did he not do in NYC while he was so engaged out of state?
I’ll also remind everyone of his response when sections of Queens went a week or more without power – during July of last year – when the power company his government is supposed to be watching kept thousands of New Yorkers in the dark (literally and figuratively). Bloomberg’s response when people asked, a week into the outage, for a reasonable estimate about how much longer they were going to be without power?
“It’ll be done when it’s done,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg told reporters gathered in Queens’ Astoria Park, where the city’s emergency command center for the blackout is set up.
Yeah, buddy! Now that’s leadership!
In spite of the media’s attempt to inflate this empty suit, Bloomberg’s chances of getting the GOP nomination for President, even spending a billion bucks in the effort, was about 1 in 10 to the gazillionth power (that’s 10gazillion for you math weenies out there) and that’s best case. The GOP’s got a big tent, folks, or at least we try. As Hugh Hewitt has said on more that one occasion, that tent still has walls. Bloomberg’s actions have shown his true nature to be on the outside of those walls. So good luck, Mr. Mayor. And good riddance.
Update: Looks like I missed one of Bloomberg’s greatest hits. Capt. Ed Morrissey from Captain’s Quarters writes about the Mayor’s change of affiliation and recalls a previous post talking about Bloomberg’s endorsement of eminent domain after the Kelo decision. Thanks, Captain! I missed that one.
June 19th, 2007
Posted by
ricjames |
Politics |
no comments
(Still catching up on the blogging, here.) I note over at Virgina Virtucon this post with several suggestions on how Virginia can update its legal structure to address life in the 21st century. Good discussion going on there about the Dillon Rule, by the way. From Wikipedia:
In Municipal Corporations (1872), Dillon explained that in contrast to the powers of states, which are unlimited but for express restrictions under the state or federal constitution, municipalities only have the powers that are expressly granted to them. This formulation of the scope of municipal power came to be known as the “Dillon Rule,” which states that municipal governments only have the powers that are expressly granted to them by the state legislature, those that are necessarily implied from that grant of power, and those that are essential and indispensable to the municipality’s existence and functioning. Any ambiguities in the legislative grant of power should be resolved against the municipality so that its powers are narrowly construed. However, when the state has not specifically directed the method by which the municipality may implement its granted power, the municipality has the discretion to choose the method so long as its choice is reasonable.
There have been many references to the Dillon Rule over the past couple of years, both good and bad. The Dillon Rule, for instance, is said to prevent situations in Virginia similar to that caused by New London, CT’s decision to exercise eminent domain powers against homeowners for the purposes of granting land to people who will (supposedly) build stuff that will generate better tax revenue. (That’s the Kelo decision.) However, it also means that local governments such as the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors lack the power to tie land use to mandated proffers and the like. (You can see this issue in play in the current Chairman York versus Virginia House Republicans row over here at Too Conservative.)
I’d like to say that a well-reasoned debate over the matter is called for – and it is – but I’ve got little faith that such a debate will actually happen outside some of the area blogs. One can always hope, I suppose.
December 31st, 2006
Posted by
ricjames |
Virginia Politics |
no comments
I am in the northeast this holiday season and, therefore, had the opportunity to actually learn of the latest development in the Ft. Trumbull area of New London, CT on the front page of The Day, New London’s newspaper. Fitting, in that this is the final development of this chapter.
The last 2 homeowners of the embattled properties, Pasquale Cristofaro and Susette Kelo (for whom the now-infamous Kelo v. New London case is named reached a settlement with the city of New London dated yesterday, 30 June. Both of them accepted undisclosed sums of money. Cristofaro also stipulated that the city save the shrubs growing at his current location and move them to his new home. There’s more than just a weird story there. Have a look:
Cristofaro emigrated from Italy in 1962, said his son, Michael Cristofaro, and he purchased a house on Woodbridge Street shortly thereafter. The city seized that house in the 1970s for a protective sea wall, never built, and Cristofaro used the money to purchase the house at 53 Goshen St.
By wheelbarrow or shopping carriage, Cristofaro transported his shrubs from his first home to his second, where he replanted them, Michael Cristofaro said.
This is the only link to his first house in the US he has left. Interesting enough, but did you notice what the article provided, even in passing? Read that line again: “The city seized that house in the 1970s for a protective sea wall, never built…”
That’s right – this man’s had his property removed once before. In that case, the seizure was for a sea wall, a justifiable public good. The fact that it was never built is an insult but that’s nothing like seizing his current home for a private developer who may or may not generate additional tax revenues with whatever business is planned.
Might be interesting to find out what happened to the land Cristofaro’s 1st house sat on and what’s on there today. I might have to see to that.
Kelo herself gets to stay in her home for up to a year while she looks elsewhere for a new plot. She has the go-ahead to move the house (at her expense) should she so decide.
It’s difficult to believe this series of events has been going on for almost 10 years. The timeline, for those interested, is here. The Day is also holding a poll on whether it was worth it for the city to have pursued this. At the moment I looked, it was running 134 – 44 against. Of course, the only poll that counts will be the next election day polls to see if the members of New London’s Council who pursued this course gets to keep their chairs.
Additonal commentary by yours truly on eminent domain and Kelo is here, here, here, and here.
(Thanks to Mudville Gazette for the open post.)
July 1st, 2006
Posted by
ricjames |
Law |
no comments
Quick hit here: I note that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name from the Supreme Court nomination. I’m sure that’s going to make lots of my conservative bretheren both happy and unhappy. Hugh Hewitt will be one of those unhappy souls and will likely start making comments that those of us who weren’t happy with the nomination have damaged the conservative movement. I respect his opinion but I cannot agree with his sentiment.
Bottom line: it’s over and done and I would like to see the President nominate someone with some experience for this highest of court offices. I would like that individual to have a record of supporting the concept that the Supreme Court makes its rulings on the basis of the Constitution – not from other nation’s legal rulings. I’d like to see someone on the bench who’s appalled by the Kelo decision and thinks that state-funded institutions shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate by race. I don’t know who that might be, yet, but I’m watching this with interest.
October 27th, 2005
Posted by
ricjames |
Uncategorized |
no comments
The first state-wide legislation aimed at fixing the gaping hole torn in the Constitutional protections of property rights has passed in Alabama.
| :::::::: |
Republican Gov. Bob Riley signed a bill that was passed unanimously by a special session of the Alabama Legislature, which would prohibit governments from using their eminent-domain authority to take privately owned properties for the purpose of turning them over to retail, industrial, office or residential developers.
Calling the high court’s June 23 ruling “misguided” and a “threat to all property owners,” Mr. Riley said, “A property rights revolt is sweeping the nation, and Alabama is leading it.”
The backlash against the judicial ruling has not received much attention in the national press, although legislative leaders in more than two dozen states have proposed statutes and/or state constitutional amendments to restrict local governments’ eminent-domain powers.
Besides Alabama, legislation to ban or restrict the use of eminent domain for private development has been introduced in 16 states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas.
Legislators have announced plans to introduce eminent-domain bills in seven more states: Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, South Carolina and Wisconsin, and lawmakers in Colorado, Georgia and Virginia plan to act on previously introduced bills.
|
:::::::: |
Excellent work, Alabama. Now we just need the rest of the Union to do what the Justices writing for the Kelo majority couldn’t understand English well enough to accomplish and re-assert the property rights protections the Founders thought they had made completely plain. I’m looking forward to announcing the passage of similar legislation here in Virginia.
August 4th, 2005
Posted by
ricjames |
Uncategorized |
no comments
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Kelo, the city of San Diego has decided to oust the business holders in San Diego’s Little Italy. There are several items in San Diego’s eminent domain queue as noted at the Castle Coalition. In the particular story I link to above, the issue surrounds Alsco, a linen and laundry company. The business employs 150 people and provides services to an estimated 3000 businesses in the area. A developer wants to build condos and some shops on the block Alsco is sitting on and has options to buy the other 3 plots that, together with Alsco, make up the block. They want the area declared “blighted” and Alsco to be forced to cough up the land.
The comment made in a story by a Union-Tribune writer by the developer’s spokeman tells the crux of the tale:
| :::::::: |
CLB Partners has sought, without success, to buy the Alsco land since 2000, developer Patrick Rhamey said. He described his company’s communication with Alsco staff as courteous, but indecisive and frustrating.
“Prior to this, there has been no movement,” he told redevelopment officials last week. “CCDC’s [Centre City Development Corp.] involvement can really help us.”
“The stick, the fire to create a sense of urgency for Alsco to take action is the threat of eminent domain,” Rhamey said. |
:::::::: |
Emphasis mine. There it is, ladies & gentlemen. The use of eminent domain here is not seen as being done for a public use. It’s a negotiation tool. It’s extortion made legal because it’s a government agency doing it with the blessing of a wrong-headed Supreme Court majority who clearly can’t understand explicit language in the Constitution. The developer has been unable to buy the property on its own so it wants to bring in muscle to force the property owner to sign on the dotted line, and that is the only concern here. Public use be damned. This is exactly the kind of thing the dissenting judges warned about in the Kelo case and its happening right on schedule.
August 3rd, 2005
Posted by
ricjames |
Uncategorized |
no comments
A new bill’s been introduced on the Hill that seeks to repair the damage done by the Supreme Court’s ill-considered Kelo ruling. There are several being considered already in Congress and they face a unique challenge that was summed up nicely by one of the Reps involved in the efforts:
| :::::::: |
Some voters have even asked lawmakers to draft a constitutional amendment, which one lawmaker said seems redundant.
“What are we going to do? The constitution is very clear — re-adopt the 5th Amendment? It specifically says you can’t do this and somehow they found … that it was OK to do it,” said Rep. Richard Pombo ( search), R-Calif., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. |
:::::::: |
Excellent point. When the highest court in the land looks at the highest law in the land and says that this phrase:
| :::::::: |
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” |
:::::::: |
…means that the government can take your house and give it to me because I can develop something on it that will – excuse me, might – generate more taxable revenue than you can, then you’ve got a real problem with writing a law. What can you say that preserves the ability to apply eminent domain in the case of a road, a bridge, or a school as has always been done and yet keep something like Kelo from happening?
The current efforts are centering around the purse strings, which is where Congress generally turns to bring States in line with their philosophy. If that’s what needs to be done to protect peoples’ homes, then do it. And get this issue back before the court after the doddering fools who ruled for the majority in Kelo are gone so this horrendous error can be corrected.
July 28th, 2005
Posted by
ricjames |
Uncategorized |
no comments
A few days ago, I wrote about my thoughts on what the residents of New London, CT should be doing with regard to their elected leaders. (Simply put: recall them.) I also made clear what I would do if I ever found out that Loudoun County, VA’s Board of Supervisors were going to try a similar stunt. Apparently, our Board’s got a lot more common sense than the New London crew. Our local newspaper doesn’t post its most recent edition on-line, so I can’t give you a link, yet, but there’s a front page story in the Loudoun Easterner dealing with our County leadership’s reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo. They disagree with it.
Supervisor Mick Staton (R-Sugarland Run) said, “It just completely erodes the concept of private property and it can go the other way. How long before someone says property with houses on it might better serve the public good by being cleared, because it might save money through services or the reduction of capital services? It cuts both ways.”
Excellent point. In New London, they want to bulldoze a neighborhood so they can build new things. Why? Because they need more money than the residential taxes can provide. Ah, but why do they need the money? Obviously because they have services they want to fund. But there’s 2 ways to get those funds. One is to increase their income, which is what they’re trying to do by kicking legal property holders off their land. The second is to cut spending elsewhere, like the rest of us have to do when we want to buy something outside our income limits. So if it’s a legitimate public use to level someone’s home to increase tax revenue, how could it not be a legitimate public use to level a home to reduce required government expenditures?
Staton has proposed that our Board approve a policy that eminent domain cannot be used in Loudoun County for private economic development. This Board is badly fractured after 5 of the previous 9 Supervisors were swept from office in 2003. Our voters here were plenty ticked off at the previous Board’s actions and 5 Democrats got handed their walking papers while 5 Republicans got invited to have a seat. Going from an 8-to-1 majority to a 6-3 minority hasn’t sat well with the “surviving” Board members and they haven’t been quiet about their feelings. When this issue was raised by Staton, it appears that the Board was unanimous in their indication that they’d vote to approve such a policy. The policy is due to be brought up at the 19 July meeting, so we’ll see how their stance is when the chips are down.
July 9th, 2005
Posted by
ricjames |
Uncategorized |
no comments
Search the web:
RSS Feed
Ric's Twitter
