#11-Of course a constitutional amendment would have been the honest way to go about it. But that’s just too hard, and too many voters and legislators elected by them get in the way of their grand designs.

“Public use” has never ever been defined as “private use”.

If states and cities want the right to seize ANY property and transfer it to a private owner for their own good (not a public benefit), that’s a de facto change of law without positive legislation.

If this is a brilliant idea and good for the majority of Americans, go right ahead and pass a constitutional amendment and ‘get r done’. It’s this constant pulling rabbits out of hats via courts (changing the status quo) that is really annoying and will prod otherwise peaceful people into revolution (at least against lawyers and judges).

So the State thinks a company will raise more money do they? Not if they don’t get any customers because of the negative publicity and near constant presence of protesters.

Find out how much a constant police presence will cost the City or State and use that to your advantage by making sure they need cops on hand at all times, 24/7/365. If they think they’re merely exercising their rights (to make a profit) exercise yours to cut into those profits.

“To answer your main question - Did anyone get screwed? The answer is no, not financially. Susette Kelo bought her house in 1997 for $56,000. She was offered $123,000 in late 2000. This was an extremely fair offer - a very very generous offer. She would never have received that price if the house was listed. This is pretty typical of the houses that were purchased.

“The market in New London since that time has continued to appreciate but it is difficult to assess whether the increase is primarily due to low interest rates and a good local economy or the arrival of Pfizer’s World Headquarters to New London.”

In any case, if the city exercized its power of eminent domain in 2000, it’s hard to fault their failure to assess the properties at their 2005 FMV, pay damages after winning the case, reward petitioners for holding out, or give petitioners the pot after they lost their gamble. Kelo tried to game the system for a windfall. She’s lucky to leave the table with her stake. What would have been fun is if the city called her bluff — after buying out all her neighgors with “very very generous” offers, the city might have decided not to exercise its power of eminent domain over Ms. Kelo’s property; instead leaving her and her plot alone, zoned for single-family residential use — in the middle of a 10 acre parking lot.

Follow that?

The [former] property owners are entitled to fair market value for the property. I don’t know the mechanism for determing that amount in Connecticut, but, I expect it’s similar to the process here in Massachusetts.

When a municipality takes property by eminent domain, it pays the property owner what the municipality considers the fair market value. If the owner disagrees with the amount, the owner files suit and eventualy the amount is determined by a jury. Evidence would typically include the sales price of similar properties, the income-generating history and potential of the property, etc.
The FMV is determined as of the effective date of the “taking” and the former owner receives interest on that amount [less the amount originally paid by the municipality] from the taking date.

So presumably, the Kelo property owners received some payment in 2000; they have a claim that their property is worth a greater amount; and they have a claim for interest on that greater amount [or the full FMV of the property if nothing was paid in 2000].

If the municipality is claiming a high rental value for the property, then that should only help the former owners prove the great value of the property itself.

The change in the real estate market may make it difficult to purchase similar property for the 2000 FMV of the taken property plus interest. That’s unfortunate but not unjust. The value of real estate might just as well have fallen since 2000. Would the owners be looking to give back their “windfall.” If the municipality took the property then, the owners hsould not have been charged real estate tax, but, they should be charged “rent.” Clearly, they would have had to pay “rent” to live somewhere since 2000.

I agree that the former owners should not be charged both real estate taxes and rent, but, I think the claim that the former owners are going to suffer an unjust financial loss may be overblown.

A follow-up point would seem to be that if they want back rent they need to give back the property taxes, which I think might have been where you were heading.

This could get ugly. I only hope it’s not ignored. In light of how many other up close and personal stories of bogus “victims” we have to endure, it would be nice to see stories of these real victims of government tyranny get the notice they deserve, if for no other reason than to motivate legislation in the states.