Betsy's Page

Friday, August 19, 2005

Can the city of New London, CT be any more despicable. First they condemn private homes so that they can build hotels, a Pfizer plant, convention center, and upscale homes. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court upheld their right to take away people's homes and give the land to private enterprise. Since they condemned the land in 2000, the owners of these homes are now being charged "rent" for living on "someone else's" property since 2000.
The homeowners could soon be served with eviction notices, which is justified by the court ruling. But the rent is something else. For some, it comes to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kelo, whose name is on the landmark case, could owe $57,000. "I'd leave here broke," she told the Fairfield County Weekly. "I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."

In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free."
So, now they lose not only their homes, but they're being punished for trying to fight the city's eminent domain decision to the Supreme Court. What a way to discourage other unfortunate homeowners from pursuing their own rights and fighting condemnation of their homes to benefit some richer private citizen. This is just so....so....unAmerican.

And here's another way that these poor homeowners are getting the shaft. Since the city condemned their homes in 2000, they will be paid what their houses were worth in 2000 with no accounting for the increase in housing prices in the past five years.
The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.

"I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low."

If you want to take action to make sure that this doesn't happen in your state, contact the Castle Coalition to see what you can do and to join their "Hands Off My Home" campaign.

Meanwhile, the Village Voice looks at how the New York Times, which of course editorialized in favor of the Kelo decision, is now benefiting with its own eminent domain takings.
When The New York Times and Forest City Ratner Companies open their grand new office building on Eighth Avenue, it won't have a Taco Bell, McDonald's, Wendy's, or Nathan's, because they are specifically forbidden under terms of a land deal with the state. But a Starbucks or Cosi would be just fine.
The lease, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, also bars renting space in the 52-story building for "a school or classroom or juvenile or adult day care or drop-in center." It forbids "medical uses, including without limitation, hospital, medical, or dental offices, agencies, or clinics." It gives the New York Times Company "the sole and absolute discretion" to reject United Nations or foreign-government offices, including any "considered controversial" or that are potentially the focus of demonstrations. It bans any "employment agency (other than executive-search firms) or job training center" and auction houses, "provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to high-end auction houses specializing in art and historical artifacts." Discount stores are forbidden. And the deal bars "a welfare or social-services office, homeless shelter or homeless assistance center, court or court-related facility."

In fact, any government office is excluded from the building if it would attract people who arrive "without appointment."

So, in land that the sstate condemned supposedly for "public use" under the Fifth Amendment provisions now prevents most government agencies from having offices in the resulting business.

No wonder the New York Times liked the Kelo decision. They certainly benefited from a cozy arrangement in getting the property without having to compete in bidding to get the land.
In the Times deal, the city and state made a no-bid pact despite prior plans to seek competitive bids for the choice midtown site the newspaper company wanted. The Times also got tens of millions of dollars in city subsidies based on what it said were the high costs of keeping 750 workers based in the city instead of New Jersey—costs that, it was clear at the time, were vastly overestimated by Times executives, as the Voice has reported ("The Paper of Wreckage," June 17, 2002). The Times got these subsidies even though, as previously reported, another developer, Gary Barnett, said he would build a 50-story office tower without heavy tax breaks. Barnett—who made headlines recently by competing with Forest City Ratner Companies to build in downtown Brooklyn—even owned part of the site.
When conservative groups have joined the Village Voice in arguing against these takings, you have an issue that will unite people across the board.

Meanwhile, Donald Kmiec recommends that the Supreme Court should accept the Kelo decision back for a rehearing. It sounds rather improbable to me that Justice Kennedy or Stevens, as Kmiec theorizes, would be willing to hear the case again.
Kennedy concurred separately in the Kelo decision, indicating that he understood the majority to allow for a more demanding standard of review to apply to a subset of economic development takings where there is "a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties." That accusation, said Kennedy, "should [be] treat[ed] . . . as a serious one and [the trial court should] review the record to see if it has merit."

In fairness, Justice Kennedy supposed this had been done in Kelo, but a close look at the record suggests it had not.

At the time of trial, the specific private beneficiaries had not even been identified, and no development agreement had even been signed. How, then, could the trial judge have evaluated favoritism, let alone resolved, in an informed way, the question of whether the public benefits to be supplied by the as-yet-unidentified private party would be, as Justice Kennedy said, "so trivial and implausible" that their very paucity would raise increased suspicions of impermissible private purpose?
I wonder how many times the Court has agreed to such rehearings. I would like to think that the justices in the majority might have realized the abomination that they agreed to in this decision, but I have no such optimism. (Links via James Taranto and Michelle Malkin)

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:53 PM 0 comments

Comments:

Can the city of New London, CT be any more despicable. First they condemn private homes so that they can build hotels, a Pfizer plant, convention center, and upscale homes. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court upheld their right to take away people's homes and give the land to private enterprise. Since they condemned the land in 2000, the owners of these homes are now being charged "rent" for living on "someone else's" property since 2000.

The homeowners could soon be served with eviction notices, which is justified by the court ruling. But the rent is something else. For some, it comes to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kelo, whose name is on the landmark case, could owe $57,000. "I'd leave here broke," she told the Fairfield County Weekly. "I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."

In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free."

So, now they lose not only their homes, but they're being punished for trying to fight the city's eminent domain decision to the Supreme Court. What a way to discourage other unfortunate homeowners from pursuing their own rights and fighting condemnation of their homes to benefit some richer private citizen. This is just so....so....unAmerican.

And here's another way that these poor homeowners are getting the shaft. Since the city condemned their homes in 2000, they will be paid what their houses were worth in 2000 with no accounting for the increase in housing prices in the past five years.

The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.

"I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low."

If you want to take action to make sure that this doesn't happen in your state, contact the Castle Coalition to see what you can do and to join their "Hands Off My Home" campaign.

Meanwhile, the Village Voice looks at how the New York Times, which of course editorialized in favor of the Kelo decision, is now benefiting with its own eminent domain takings.

When The New York Times and Forest City Ratner Companies open their grand new office building on Eighth Avenue, it won't have a Taco Bell, McDonald's, Wendy's, or Nathan's, because they are specifically forbidden under terms of a land deal with the state. But a Starbucks or Cosi would be just fine.
The lease, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, also bars renting space in the 52-story building for "a school or classroom or juvenile or adult day care or drop-in center." It forbids "medical uses, including without limitation, hospital, medical, or dental offices, agencies, or clinics." It gives the New York Times Company "the sole and absolute discretion" to reject United Nations or foreign-government offices, including any "considered controversial" or that are potentially the focus of demonstrations. It bans any "employment agency (other than executive-search firms) or job training center" and auction houses, "provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to high-end auction houses specializing in art and historical artifacts." Discount stores are forbidden. And the deal bars "a welfare or social-services office, homeless shelter or homeless assistance center, court or court-related facility."

In fact, any government office is excluded from the building if it would attract people who arrive "without appointment."

So, in land that the sstate condemned supposedly for "public use" under the Fifth Amendment provisions now prevents most government agencies from having offices in the resulting business.

No wonder the New York Times liked the Kelo decision. They certainly benefited from a cozy arrangement in getting the property without having to compete in bidding to get the land.

In the Times deal, the city and state made a no-bid pact despite prior plans to seek competitive bids for the choice midtown site the newspaper company wanted. The Times also got tens of millions of dollars in city subsidies based on what it said were the high costs of keeping 750 workers based in the city instead of New Jersey—costs that, it was clear at the time, were vastly overestimated by Times executives, as the Voice has reported ("The Paper of Wreckage," June 17, 2002). The Times got these subsidies even though, as previously reported, another developer, Gary Barnett, said he would build a 50-story office tower without heavy tax breaks. Barnett—who made headlines recently by competing with Forest City Ratner Companies to build in downtown Brooklyn—even owned part of the site.

When conservative groups have joined the Village Voice in arguing against these takings, you have an issue that will unite people across the board.

Meanwhile, Donald Kmiec recommends that the Supreme Court should accept the Kelo decision back for a rehearing. It sounds rather improbable to me that Justice Kennedy or Stevens, as Kmiec theorizes, would be willing to hear the case again.

Kennedy concurred separately in the Kelo decision, indicating that he understood the majority to allow for a more demanding standard of review to apply to a subset of economic development takings where there is "a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties." That accusation, said Kennedy, "should [be] treat[ed] . . . as a serious one and [the trial court should] review the record to see if it has merit."

In fairness, Justice Kennedy supposed this had been done in Kelo, but a close look at the record suggests it had not.

At the time of trial, the specific private beneficiaries had not even been identified, and no development agreement had even been signed. How, then, could the trial judge have evaluated favoritism, let alone resolved, in an informed way, the question of whether the public benefits to be supplied by the as-yet-unidentified private party would be, as Justice Kennedy said, "so trivial and implausible" that their very paucity would raise increased suspicions of impermissible private purpose?

I wonder how many times the Court has agreed to such rehearings. I would like to think that the justices in the majority might have realized the abomination that they agreed to in this decision, but I have no such optimism. (Links via James Taranto and Michelle Malkin)

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:53 PM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Friday, August 19, 2005

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Friday, August 19, 2005 Can the city of New London, CT be any more despicable. First they condemn private homes so that they can build hotels, a Pfizer plant, convention center, and upscale homes. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court upheld their right to take away people's homes and give the land to private enterprise. Since they condemned the land in 2000, the owners of these homes are now being charged "rent" for living on "someone else's" property since 2000. The homeowners could soon be served with eviction notices, which is justified by the court ruling. But the rent is something else. For some, it comes to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kelo, whose name is on the landmark case, could owe $57,000. "I'd leave here broke," she told the Fairfield County Weekly. "I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge." In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free." So, now they lose not only their homes, but they're being punished for trying to fight the city's eminent domain decision to the Supreme Court. What a way to discourage other unfortunate homeowners from pursuing their own rights and fighting condemnation of their homes to benefit some richer private citizen. This is just so....so....unAmerican. And here's another way that these poor homeowners are getting the shaft. Since the city condemned their homes in 2000, they will be paid what their houses were worth in 2000 with no accounting for the increase in housing prices in the past five years. The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst. "I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low." If you want to take action to make sure that this doesn't happen in your state, contact the Castle Coalition to see what you can do and to join their "Hands Off My Home" campaign. Meanwhile, the Village Voice looks at how the New York Times, which of course editorialized in favor of the Kelo decision, is now benefiting with its own eminent domain takings. When The New York Times and Forest City Ratner Companies open their grand new office building on Eighth Avenue, it won't have a Taco Bell, McDonald's, Wendy's, or Nathan's, because they are specifically forbidden under terms of a land deal with the state. But a Starbucks or Cosi would be just fine. The lease, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, also bars renting space in the 52-story building for "a school or classroom or juvenile or adult day care or drop-in center." It forbids "medical uses, including without limitation, hospital, medical, or dental offices, agencies, or clinics." It gives the New York Times Company "the sole and absolute discretion" to reject United Nations or foreign-government offices, including any "considered controversial" or that are potentially the focus of demonstrations. It bans any "employment agency (other than executive-search firms) or job training center" and auction houses, "provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to high-end auction houses specializing in art and historical artifacts." Discount stores are forbidden. And the deal bars "a welfare or social-services office, homeless shelter or homeless assistance center, court or court-related facility." In fact, any government office is excluded from the building if it would attract people who arrive "without appointment." So, in land that the sstate condemned supposedly for "public use" under the Fifth Amendment provisions now prevents most government agencies from having offices in the resulting business. No wonder the New York Times liked the Kelo decision. They certainly benefited from a cozy arrangement in getting the property without having to compete in bidding to get the land. In the Times deal, the city and state made a no-bid pact despite prior plans to seek competitive bids for the choice midtown site the newspaper company wanted. The Times also got tens of millions of dollars in city subsidies based on what it said were the high costs of keeping 750 workers based in the city instead of New Jersey—costs that, it was clear at the time, were vastly overestimated by Times executives, as the Voice has reported ("The Paper of Wreckage," June 17, 2002). The Times got these subsidies even though, as previously reported, another developer, Gary Barnett, said he would build a 50-story office tower without heavy tax breaks. Barnett—who made headlines recently by competing with Forest City Ratner Companies to build in downtown Brooklyn—even owned part of the site. When conservative groups have joined the Village Voice in arguing against these takings, you have an issue that will unite people across the board. Meanwhile, Donald Kmiec recommends that the Supreme Court should accept the Kelo decision back for a rehearing. It sounds rather improbable to me that Justice Kennedy or Stevens, as Kmiec theorizes, would be willing to hear the case again. Kennedy concurred separately in the Kelo decision, indicating that he understood the majority to allow for a more demanding standard of review to apply to a subset of economic development takings where there is "a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties." That accusation, said Kennedy, "should [be] treat[ed] . . . as a serious one and [the trial court should] review the record to see if it has merit." In fairness, Justice Kennedy supposed this had been done in Kelo, but a close look at the record suggests it had not. At the time of trial, the specific private beneficiaries had not even been identified, and no development agreement had even been signed. How, then, could the trial judge have evaluated favoritism, let alone resolved, in an informed way, the question of whether the public benefits to be supplied by the as-yet-unidentified private party would be, as Justice Kennedy said, "so trivial and implausible" that their very paucity would raise increased suspicions of impermissible private purpose? I wonder how many times the Court has agreed to such rehearings. I would like to think that the justices in the majority might have realized the abomination that they agreed to in this decision, but I have no such optimism. (Links via James Taranto and Michelle Malkin) posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:53 PM 0 comments Comments: Can the city of New London, CT be any more despicable. First they condemn private homes so that they can build hotels, a Pfizer plant, convention center, and upscale homes. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court upheld their right to take away people's homes and give the land to private enterprise. Since they condemned the land in 2000, the owners of these homes are now being charged "rent" for living on "someone else's" property since 2000. The homeowners could soon be served with eviction notices, which is justified by the court ruling. But the rent is something else. For some, it comes to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kelo, whose name is on the landmark case, could owe $57,000. "I'd leave here broke," she told the Fairfield County Weekly. "I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge." In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free." So, now they lose not only their homes, but they're being punished for trying to fight the city's eminent domain decision to the Supreme Court. What a way to discourage other unfortunate homeowners from pursuing their own rights and fighting condemnation of their homes to benefit some richer private citizen. This is just so....so....unAmerican. And here's another way that these poor homeowners are getting the shaft. Since the city condemned their homes in 2000, they will be paid what their houses were worth in 2000 with no accounting for the increase in housing prices in the past five years. The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst. "I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low." If you want to take action to make sure that this doesn't happen in your state, contact the Castle Coalition to see what you can do and to join their "Hands Off My Home" campaign. Meanwhile, the Village Voice looks at how the New York Times, which of course editorialized in favor of the Kelo decision, is now benefiting with its own eminent domain takings. When The New York Times and Forest City Ratner Companies open their grand new office building on Eighth Avenue, it won't have a Taco Bell, McDonald's, Wendy's, or Nathan's, because they are specifically forbidden under terms of a land deal with the state. But a Starbucks or Cosi would be just fine. The lease, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, also bars renting space in the 52-story building for "a school or classroom or juvenile or adult day care or drop-in center." It forbids "medical uses, including without limitation, hospital, medical, or dental offices, agencies, or clinics." It gives the New York Times Company "the sole and absolute discretion" to reject United Nations or foreign-government offices, including any "considered controversial" or that are potentially the focus of demonstrations. It bans any "employment agency (other than executive-search firms) or job training center" and auction houses, "provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to high-end auction houses specializing in art and historical artifacts." Discount stores are forbidden. And the deal bars "a welfare or social-services office, homeless shelter or homeless assistance center, court or court-related facility." In fact, any government office is excluded from the building if it would attract people who arrive "without appointment." So, in land that the sstate condemned supposedly for "public use" under the Fifth Amendment provisions now prevents most government agencies from having offices in the resulting business. No wonder the New York Times liked the Kelo decision. They certainly benefited from a cozy arrangement in getting the property without having to compete in bidding to get the land. In the Times deal, the city and state made a no-bid pact despite prior plans to seek competitive bids for the choice midtown site the newspaper company wanted. The Times also got tens of millions of dollars in city subsidies based on what it said were the high costs of keeping 750 workers based in the city instead of New Jersey—costs that, it was clear at the time, were vastly overestimated by Times executives, as the Voice has reported ("The Paper of Wreckage," June 17, 2002). The Times got these subsidies even though, as previously reported, another developer, Gary Barnett, said he would build a 50-story office tower without heavy tax breaks. Barnett—who made headlines recently by competing with Forest City Ratner Companies to build in downtown Brooklyn—even owned part of the site. When conservative groups have joined the Village Voice in arguing against these takings, you have an issue that will unite people across the board. Meanwhile, Donald Kmiec recommends that the Supreme Court should accept the Kelo decision back for a rehearing. It sounds rather improbable to me that Justice Kennedy or Stevens, as Kmiec theorizes, would be willing to hear the case again. Kennedy concurred separately in the Kelo decision, indicating that he understood the majority to allow for a more demanding standard of review to apply to a subset of economic development takings where there is "a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties." That accusation, said Kennedy, "should [be] treat[ed] . . . as a serious one and [the trial court should] review the record to see if it has merit." In fairness, Justice Kennedy supposed this had been done in Kelo, but a close look at the record suggests it had not. At the time of trial, the specific private beneficiaries had not even been identified, and no development agreement had even been signed. How, then, could the trial judge have evaluated favoritism, let alone resolved, in an informed way, the question of whether the public benefits to be supplied by the as-yet-unidentified private party would be, as Justice Kennedy said, "so trivial and implausible" that their very paucity would raise increased suspicions of impermissible private purpose? I wonder how many times the Court has agreed to such rehearings. I would like to think that the justices in the majority might have realized the abomination that they agreed to in this decision, but I have no such optimism. (Links via James Taranto and Michelle Malkin) posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:53 PM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment