Kelo Crunch Time Looms in New London — Part 1

I wanted to get this update out before the holiday weekend ahead of when the cut-out-early crowd (you know who you are) cuts out.

That’s because by the time everyone’s back in gear next week, the holdouts in the case that led to the Supreme Court’s odious Kelo v. New London decision will be roughly 24 hours away from the deadline the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) has imposed on them, with the approval of the town’s City Council. And wait until you see in Part 2 what happens if the deadline passes.

First, let’s refresh — When I last posted on the New London Kelo controversy in January, NLDC was trying to entice the Coast Guard to build a museum and to have developer Corcoran Jennison build a 133-room hotel adjacent to it. Building these facilities does not involve the Kelo-disputed properties.

In early February, the city made an offer to the holdouts (the link is to Langrrr’s Libery Blog because the original AP report that was in the Washington Post is long gone):

The mayor of New London, where a fight over government seizing property led to a controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling, is proposing a compromise for a group of homeowners.

Under a plan presented to the City Council Monday night, four people whose homes were seized for a private development would be allowed to stay. The city would own their properties and the residents would have to pay the city to live there.

Yeah, you read that right. As you might expect, the holdouts are not at all impressed:

“The ongoing battle of the last eight years has not been to allow us to live in our homes and pay rent to the city of New London until we die,” Kelo said.

A Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial called the offer “Another Kelo Insult.”

In March, a Hartford Courant columnist (link no longer available) suggested that NLDC just let the holdouts be. Clearly, there was not much interest in that idea.

In early April, demonstrating more flexibility than I would have expected, the holdouts had an idea that from here seemed awfully reasonable:

….. a proposal to move the homes to an unused lot in the Fort Trumbull area was put on the table. The proposal would also give the resident’s the titles back.

That proposal was defeated by a vote of 5 to 2.

Councilman William Cornish says,”I am disappointed. I think the city council is out of whack with the community. All the people I talked to said give them their homes back and not to keep going the way we are doing it.”

Susette Kelo says,”I am not surprised. Right now I am waiting for the Governor’s word on it. She supported us in June and then again in September.”

In late April, the NLDC apparently got the museum deal done (though it is not indicated at the link, the date of the report is April 28; I say “apparently,” because the need to do a $30 million “fundraising campaign” seems odd):

Today the Governor and the Coast Guard signed agreements to build a U.S. Coast Guard Museum in New London. The $60-million museum will be built on a 3 acre site on the waterfront at Fort Trumbull.

Where to build the museum has been a seven year political struggle. But after much debate, the Coast Guard decided to build a state of the art facility at Fort Trumbull in New London. Governor Jodi Rell and Coast Guard officers made it official and inked the deal with Connecticut kicking in $15-million.

The project includes exhibition space and interactive displays, an amphitheatre for outdoor events, a waterfront walk and pier with a cafe and restaurant.

The designated developer for Fort Trumbull will build a 133 room hotel and conference facility next door to the museum on land that once belonged to the Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

The new development is expected to give the city the economic shot in the arm it’s been waiting for. Eyewitness News has been told a fundraising campaign will soon rev up to collect $30 million to support the design and construction of this new facility.

Here’s the importance of this development: The city and NLDC now have everything they want. Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice has asserted, without vocal disagreement, that the holdouts’ property is not needed for development.

Lacking other recourse, the Kelo holdouts have placed a lot of faith in the Connecticut legislature and Governor Jodi Rell to defend them. In early May, the legislature let them down, adjourning without acting, as this this editorial excerpt at a small newspaper in the state noted with displeasure:

The failure of Democrats in the General Assembly to keep their promise and pass a law restricting use of land condemnation by eminent domain for the sake of economic development is disappointing.

A large majority of the state’s voters and taxpayers clearly favor these restrictions, but divisions within the legislature’s Democratic majority stymied their chances. The majority leadership said differences between state House and Senate versions proved too wide for legislators to reconcile.

What has happened since the letdown at the Legislature? A lot–go to Part 2 to get up-to-date.
___________________________

UPDATE, May 25: The New London Gazette’s front-page story in its May issue is about Kelo, and reinforces the point about the NLDC’s lack of need for the land:

After the Supreme Court decision, there was an immense outcry throughout the country condemning it, and Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut, to her everlasting credit, put a hold on the takings of the homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood and stopped action to evict the residents.

Since then, the Governor has sent an agent to “negotiate” with the holdouts, essentially asking what price they would accept to leave. The city has also offered to let them stay in their homes as renters, with the houses moved to one of the two contested blocks. This offer actually reveals that the land never was needed for economic development.

The bottom line is that the home owners do not want to sell or become renters, although they are willing to have their houses moved within the area from what is called Parcel 3C to Parcel 4A. They want their ownership back. And since giving them back their titles is not part of the “negotiations” setting a deadline of May 31 for them to make up their minds, as the city council has done, seems rather pointless.