Last Stand For Property Rights

[shemp]

Two New London, CT homeowners are making their last stand against the city.

A Year After Supreme Court Decision, New London Homeowners Still Defy City (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/08/national/main1693499.shtml)

The showdown in New London, Conn., over the city's seizure of homes to make way for private development is entering its final and contentious chapter.

Seven longtime residents of the city's Fort Trumbull neighborhood took their battle to save their homes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, nearly a year after the high court upheld the city's eminent domain power in a controversial 5-to-4 decision, two families are still fighting eviction. Efforts to negotiate a compromise appear to have ended.

On Monday, the New London City Council voted 5 to 2 to authorize the city attorney to obtain a court order to seize and demolish the homes of Susette Kelo and Michael Cristofaro.

Kelo's pink cottage at 8 East Street and Cristofaro's house a few blocks away have become symbols of defiance for property rights activists nationwide. And it is unclear what might happen should bulldozers suddenly arrive in the neighborhood.

"If I have to handcuff myself to the house I am willing to do that," says Cristofaro. "My father is 81 years old and he says he will cuff himself to the house."

Supporters have been phoning nonstop from around the country, Cristofaro says. Some are pledging to form a protective human chain around his home, if necessary.

I bet David Souter won't be among them.

[Mycroft]

Hope they win.

[Grammatron]

More power to them.

[Spindrift]

Hope they win.
Unfortunately, they already lost.

The Supreme Court is as far as they can go.

I think it's a stupid decision, but it is what it is. There's no other recourse than civil disobedience, which I doubt is going to add up to much.

[Grammatron]

Unfortunately, they already lost.

The Supreme Court is as far as they can go.

I think it's a stupid decision, but it is what it is. There's no other recourse than civil disobedience, which I doubt is going to add up to much.

If they drag it toward November elections and make more noise of it there might be legislature.

[Mycroft]

If they drag it toward November elections and make more noise of it there might be legislature.

That's my hope.

[Jas]

There was a similar incident back in Calgary, and the big problem was, the city was giving the woman maybe a tenth of what her ranch was worth. There's no way she could have bought other land with what they gave her. Unfortunately, she had to move. And, iirc, it was especially upsetting, because they could have constructed the highway on the edge of her land, instead of where her house was.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Unfortunately, they already lost.

The Supreme Court is as far as they can go.

I think it's a stupid decision, but it is what it is. There's no other recourse than civil disobedience, which I doubt is going to add up to much.

That pretty much sums it up. They lost. They'll get more for their property than what it is worth. Probably a lot more. It's time to move on.

[CBL4]

This type of thing really hits home with me. My wife, her brother and a couple we know risked our life's saving buying real estate with the hope of selling it for condos. We accumulated two separate parcels of approximately 1 acre in an area that has been zoned for 120 foot buildings since 1965.

As soon as some developer approached the city for building permits, there was an immediate outcry about how we were destroying the neighborhood by planning 60 foot condos. Our city council member led a devious fight against us.

It is a very strange feeling to have people argue that they have the right to take hundreds of thousands of dollars from you despite the fact that you have followed the rules and helped the city in many other ways. If we had not rid the area of drug dealers, prostitutes and other criminals, there would be no opposition to us (but then again, there would be no interest in condos)

We recently won our third apparent victory towards our project and can finally resume the plan to sell but it a very draining process. I am a worse person than I was a year ago. I used to want help the city and my neighbors and we sacrificed considerable money doing so. Now I hate them. I would sacrifice money to hurt the city.

We do have support from some of our neighbors, most of our tenants and the entire business community but it is very hard for me to remember that.

CBL

[Meadmaker]

This type of thing really hits home with me. My wife, her brother and a couple we know risked our life's saving buying real estate with the hope of selling it for condos. We accumulated two separate parcels of approximately 1 acre in an area that has been zoned for 120 foot buildings since 1965.

As soon as some developer approached the city for building permits, there was an immediate outcry about how we were destroying the neighborhood by planning 60 foot condos. Our city council member led a devious fight against us.


I'm not following you. Was the 120 a maximum? What I mean is, were you in accordance with the zoning laws, or were you asking for a modification?

It seems to me that your case is a different case than the one in question. You were asking to modify an existing place in order to make a profit, and the people who are there already were asking to keep things the way they were. Right? Or is there something different?

Either way, it doesn't mean you were doing something bad. I'm just saying that it isn't obvious to the casual reader (me) that your case should generate the same sort of sympathy. It's a failed real estate deal, being opposed by reasons unknown (by us, that is) by (some of) the people who live in the neighborhood.

In the property rights case, the people who live in the neighborhood are being told they have no choice but to sell their homes that they don't want to sell, and move, so that someone else can make some money. It's pretty clear where my sympathies are in the other case. Yours isn't quite so clear, although that's probably just a case of insufficient data. I seriously doubt that you are a robber baron wanting to throw little old ladies out of their homes.

[headscratcher4]

Is there any effort underway to recall the County/City commissioners/coucilors who pushed this land grab? I think this is outrageous...as, seemingly, most who hear about it. However -- and not that it excuses it -- is there sufficient outrage in the city to cause people to lose their "elective" job? It seems to me that democracy is one solution, regardless of what the court said, i.e. turn the guys out. If their still in office, un-recalled and unafraid of their position in running for office, perhaps that is what happens with Democracy. In other words, is there no local check on this supposed abuse of power?

[shemp]

My father had a personal experience with this back in the 1940s. He owned a few acres of land in Merrimack, NH, which he bought as an investment. Unfortunately, the state decided this was a good place to put a highway. They paid him less than what he paid. They then sold some of the land they didn't need to developers for a nice profit. Every time I go by Exit 11 on the Daniel Webster Highway I think about it.

[Scoobmaster]

The real crime in this case (and what has me burning with rage) is that this is not even within the confines of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution's "eminent domain" clause!
It quite clearly states that property be taken for "public use".

I think a little common sense should reveal that public use is for the likes of roads, parks, or other civic-use. In this case they are going to give it to third party private developers to build a hotel and office buildings. The use of force by government to sieze private property and hand it to other privately owned companies (other citizens) for economic profit is criminal (I.E. STEALING) pure and simple.

Dress it up in all the "for the greater good of the community" rhetoric you want, it is still theft (the taking of ones property by force). If we lose property rights, how can we consider ourselves to be living in "freedom"???!!!

[CBL4]

[i][Originally posted by Meadmaker[i]I'm not following you. Was the 120 a maximum? What I mean is, were you in accordance with the zoning laws, or were you asking for a modification?Yes, I was in accordance with the zoning that had existed for 40 years. From 1965 to 2005, I could have built anything up to 120 feet. In 2005, developers wanted to buy my property and build 50 or 60 foot condos. They started talking to the city and immediately there was a move to drop the height to 35 feet led by my local city council member.

The worst part is that she is a newbie who never would have moved to the neighborhood if we had not gotten rid of the drug dealers, prostitutes and other criminals. But now she and some other neighbors are happy with the neighborhood and do not want it changed. One of them told me that we should be happy to "break even" and that we are greedy if we to make money. My wife and her brother have not gotten a paycheck for 5 years but apparently they should be happy as long as they do not lose any money.

BTW, none of our immediate neighbors or our tenants are among the opposition.

CBL

[Meadmaker]

Thanks for the reply. Seems like you are getting a raw deal to me.


If you don't mind my asking, how did you get rid of the drug dealers, prostitutes, etc? Did you make a big difference in the neighborhood, and if so, how did you manage it?

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Thanks for the reply. Seems like you are getting a raw deal to me.Seems that way to me.

If you don't mind my asking, how did you get rid of the drug dealers, prostitutes, etc? Did you make a big difference in the neighborhood, and if so, how did you manage it?It helps that it is a penny ante town with penny ante drug dealers. The population of the area was mostly loser/deadbeat/addicts/prostitutes not violent people.

Before buying the first group of properties, we insisted that the two drug dealing tenants were evicted. We live in the properties - not out of choice but because we have no money to live elsewhere. We harass losers and make sure we get better tenants. We give good people a good break on the understanding that they will harass the drug dealers. We have let properties sit vacant if they were not habitable by decent people instead of finding renters who will live in dumps.

We bought 22 properties with 50 some rental units which was a significant portion of the immediate rental market. Since we bought the cheapest properties, they were generally occupied by the worst people which meant we quickly got rid of the worst. My brother-in-law has a loud mouth which convinced people that he had money and clout.

The city is in a beautiful location and is probably the only suburb of a major city which had Section 8 people occupying the majority of a beautiful waterfront. The city government was attempting another round of revitilization along with help from the county, state and local government.
It is small enough that a few people could make a difference and I think we did. Not alone but we are certainly in the top 5 people who made a differnence.

CBL

[fuelair]

This type of thing really hits home with me. My wife, her brother and a couple we know risked our life's saving buying real estate with the hope of selling it for condos. We accumulated two separate parcels of approximately 1 acre in an area that has been zoned for 120 foot buildings since 1965.

As soon as some developer approached the city for building permits, there was an immediate outcry about how we were destroying the neighborhood by planning 60 foot condos. Our city council member led a devious fight against us.

It is a very strange feeling to have people argue that they have the right to take hundreds of thousands of dollars from you despite the fact that you have followed the rules and helped the city in many other ways. If we had not rid the area of drug dealers, prostitutes and other criminals, there would be no opposition to us (but then again, there would be no interest in condos)

We recently won our third apparent victory towards our project and can finally resume the plan to sell but it a very draining process. I am a worse person than I was a year ago. I used to want help the city and my neighbors and we sacrificed considerable money doing so. Now I hate them. I would sacrifice money to hurt the city.

We do have support from some of our neighbors, most of our tenants and the entire business community but it is very hard for me to remember that.

CBL

As much as I frequently dislike condos being built in really stupid locations - when a person has actually followed the rules AND the rules weren't made or twisted to get the condo/whatever approved AND no bribery or favoritism or strongarming were involved I agree with the way you feel about this and second it!!!!

[CBL4]

Originally posted by fuelairAs much as I frequently dislike condos being built in really stupid locations - when a person has actually followed the rules AND the rules weren't made or twisted to get the condo/whatever approved AND no bribery or favoritism or strongarming were involved I agree with the way you feel about this and second it!!!!The area is proper for condos. It has been declared blighted and the none of the house in the area are worth saving. Some were grand old homes but the emphasis should be on "were." Virtually no maintenance was done for decades and one house was condemn and bulldozed a few years before we bought it. Two others were pretty close to condemnation as well and some units in triplexes and 4-plexes probably would not have been legal.

But all that is irrelevant. It is my land and, as long as I follow zoning, I have the right to do whatever I want with it. I can build condos, a trailer park or I can board it up. It is my land, my choice. And if the city want to change the zoning on me, they need to fully compensate me.

Washington state has a land use proposition (I-933) on the ballot this November which ensures that (http://www.propertyfairness.com/). We were actually looking forward to suing the pants off the city with 933 looming as a club in the background. To be honest, we were disappointed when we won the most recent zoning. I was looking forward to seeing the council squirm as they faced a $2 million lawsuit. We had strong documentation of value and they had used a building moratium without following the proper procedure.

CBL