Eminent Domain, and Kelo v. New London

Let's talk about the most recent supreme court ruling, Kelo vs. New London, and how the liberals of the Supreme Court have once again made government your daddy.

For those of you without the time to research this yourself, I'll sum it up here.
But first, let's introduce the players:

• The biotech company Pfizer. They make tons of medicines you use, including Listerine, Rolaids, Sudafed, and Visine.
• The New London Development Corporation (NLDC). The Supreme Court ruling includes this description: "a non-profit organization whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors and employees are privately appointed." The NLDC home page has the following quote- "...Economic development is a community's best opportunity to create wealth and expand the tax base."--Michael Joplin, President, NLDC
• A woman named Claire Gaudiani, who worked for the NLDC. She's a professional do-gooder and philanthropist. A one time French literature teacher- then president of Connecticut College- she promotes her good deeds heavily. She wrote a book called "The Greater Good".
• Susette Kelo, and 8 other petitioners named in the Supreme Court ruling who own property in New London. Susette made considerable improvements to her house after buying it in 1997, and likes it for its waterfront view.

Claire Gaundiani was bought into NLDC to help them revitalize the waterfront area of New London. In their first meeting, they came up with the following goals:
· increase the city's tax base,
· increase the number of jobs, and
· improve the quality of life for New London residents.

Around 1997, Gaundiani and the NLDC tried to convince Pfizer to build their new research facility there, but Pfizer had already narrowed their choices down to several other sites.
The NLDC hired Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, an urban design LLC, to help them out.

The scope of work included development of the state's fourth biotechnology incubator, the refurbishment of the historic Fort Trumbull on the former NUWC property as a new state park; and the productive reuse of the remaining NUWC site. The work plan also included the purchase and environmental abatement of an adjacent scrap yard, upgrading the area's utilities and infrastructure, improving the odor control and other systems of the city's wastewater treatment plant, and the acquisition of numerous surrounding residential and business properties.

In January 1998, Pfizer was convinced, and they announced plans to build in New London.
Now we have to read the fine print of NLDC's plans: "the acquisition of numerous surrounding residential and business properties."

The NLDC didn't plan on hold outs, people who actually wanted to stay on their waterfront property. Or maybe they did?

Either way, according to the Supreme Court, "There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area." According to the SC, this was legal under Connecticut law. A "statute expresses a legislative determination that the taking of land, even developed land, as part of an economic development pro-ject is a “public use” and in the “public interest.”"

Now this is where things get icky. It used to be that the government could sieze land only if it was for "public use." But the SC has ruled that it can also be used if it serves the "public interest."

Another words, if your property isn't bringing in enough tax money, the government can take it. That was the legal loophole that was used to take the land of those 9 land owners.

This was just plain wrong. If this doesn't get your attention, you either don't own land or you never dreamed of owning a home.
There are so many people in this process to be annoyed with.

Claire Gaudiani, who likes to talk about the greater good. Claire; you blew it... big time. I will forever think of you as the person who thinks that the greater good is when I have to move for your dream project to come to completion. If you agree, contact Claire.

The NLDC, who actually has a "social justice" person on their staff, whose responsibility it is to look out for the little guy and the "underprivilaged". That kills me. Great joke, guys. I think you should tell the CEO of NLDC what you think of their plan to condemn the house of the little guy for the corporation. Talk about people who lost the purpose of their mission.

Finally, Pfizer. Yeah, I know its their only job is to be responsible to their shareholders. But lets be real, here. If we give corporations the green light to use government to remove our homes, so that they can work in a comfy neighborhood, then we're all screwed. If anyone should have stopped this from reaching the Supreme Court, Pfizer should have. They could have whispered into the ear of the NLDC "That's not necessary. Let those people keep their homes. We'll build there anyway" But they didn't. This is from Pfizer's website on "Corporate citizenship":

Citizenship defines our role in local and global communities and how we strive to conduct business responsibly in a changing world.

As I said before, Pfizer makes a host of products: Benadryl, Listerine, Neosporin, Purell, Rogaine, Rolaids, Sudafed, Visine, and Zantac. I'm boycotting those products. I think you should too. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to let them know.


I think Justice Thomas, in his dissent, said it best:

Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases con-struing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In myview, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

-John