Kelo Crunch Time Looms in New London — Part 3: Pre-Crunch Commentary Roundup

6:15 PM UPDATE: Recent headlines indicate that nothing decisive will occur tomorrow, and that Kelo Crunch Time (expected to last 90-plus days) will begin. Go to this follow-up post for more.

June 1: UPDATE: And Then There Were Four

Note: Tomorrow, May 31, is what I am calling Kelo Crunch Day, the deadline set by the New London City Council and the New London development Corporation (NLDC) for the Kelo holdouts to either accept their “offer” (moving the houses to a different parcel and paying rent for the rest of their lives) or face eviction and the assessment of $946,000 in back rents, taxes, and fees. Go to “Kelo Crunch Time” Part 1 and Part 2 from last week for more immediate background, and explore the previous post links at the bottom of this entry for a deeper look at what has happened to the real people impacted by Kelo v. New London since the Supreme Court’s decision.

This home in New London, Conn., is one of several at the
center of last year’s Supreme Court ruling.
(AP Photo originally posted at
MSNBC.com in June of last year)
__________________________________

Rick Green at the Hartford Courant Challenges the Governor to Lead

In his May 26 column, Green said, in essence, that Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell needs to do the right thing, and noted how easily the matter could be resolved:

Is Gov. Rell Really Set To Rumble?

Big Brother wants their homes and all our governor can say to these New London property owners is let’s “redouble” efforts to prevent this.

How about: You kick them out of their homes, New London, I take away the state money for your pretty waterfront condos and boutique hotel.

….. It seems the governor thinks these holdouts just want to shake down New London for more money. Her mediator, Robert Albright, “has to move beyond these discussions of who wants to sell,” said Scott Bullock, lawyer for the Fort Trumbull residents.

“They want the title to their property. They want to hold on to their homes,” said Bullock, senior attorney with the Virginia-based Institute for Justice.

Giving the residents back their homes won’t interfere with the development, Bullock said, because residents with homes in the way are willing to have their buildings moved to a small portion of the property, known as parcel 4A, where no immediate construction is planned.

So what’s at stake isn’t the future of the Fort Trumbull project. But after eight years, this ugly eminent domain fight might teach us something.

It’s whether our top leader is really a leader.

Dissenting New London Councilman Speaks Out

In a May 23 Letter to the Editor, Councilman Charles Frink made a strong argument that what the City and the NLDC’s believe they are entitled to collect from the holdouts if they don’t give in is vastly overstated, and that in any event the holdouts should get what they want (New London Day link requires registration, and requires subscription after 7 days):

Fort Trumbull Tax Issue Might Be Fictitious

….. if my information is correct, the figure of $946,143 for past-due-taxes, use and occupancy fees, and rent from third parties, is, at the very least, grossly exaggerated and may be entirely fictitious.

Since the obligation to pay property taxes rests with the owner(s), and the titles to the properties of the Fort Trumbull residents were taken from them by eminent domain and have not been returned, those residents do not owe a penny of past taxes. As for use and occupancy fees and third-party rents, a pre-trial agreement stipulated that these fees would be waived and rents not claimed during the period of litigation, which ended in June of 2005. A court might hold that these monies are owed since that date, but the amount would be a small fraction of the quoted figure.

The situation could be settled promptly if the council would adopt the compromise proposed by Bill Cornish and me:
• Return the titles to the residents.
• Cluster the remaining houses on parcel 4A.
• Agree that the residents would pay taxes back to last July.
• Agree to no further litigation.

Any other course of action promises further delay and dissension.

It is pretty unique to owe property taxes on property you don’t even have the title to.

The New London Day Weighs In

In an unsigned Sunday editorial (as with the previous item, registration is required, and subscription is required after 7 days) that I believe surprised almost no one, The Day said that the Council and the NLDC should get their way:

Giving back the titles to the affected properties and leaving them all in place is not a reasonable option. It is time to move on.

Mayor Elizabeth Sabilia’s proposal to relocate buildings to the northern part of Parcel 1-A (Note: I believe they mean 4-A — Ed.) and give the people lifetime uses of the dwellings is a sincere and accommodating proposal. It may well have placed additional pressures on all the parties — including the former property owners and the governor’s office — to press with renewed vigor to settle the matter.

The governor, who is running for election, has tried to balance the interests of the former property owners with the need to complete a state project that would provide an enhanced tax base and a new center of economic activity for New London.

Beside the additional compensation and possible home relocations, there also may be other options. Perhaps some property owners could get new housing among some 64 units planned in the area. That is a fitting subject for negotiation.

But time truly is running out. The City Council has set a deadline of May 31, Wednesday, for the parties to reach a settlement. After that, the individuals would be subject to paying back taxes, give-backs on rents they collected since the Supreme Court decision and paying rent for their occupancy of the buildings. The former owners agreed to those stipulations in a court case before the matter was settled by the Supreme Court.

The Day editorial did not address why moving the houses AND giving back the titles, which is the holdouts’ compromise offer, is not acceptable. And The Day must know that none of the holdouts is the least bit interested in “new housing.” I also question the accuracy of The Day’s claim in the final sentence of the excerpt, given that Councilman Frink above stated that “a pre-trial agreement stipulated that these fees would be waived and rents not claimed during the period of litigation, which ended in June of 2005.” E-mail me if you can help to clarify this.

An AP Downplay?

Maybe it’s me, but The Associated Press’s National News Calendar (backup link here) for this week didn’t seem to be interested in calling attention to the situation: “New London, Conn. — Deadline for home sales in the city’s Fort Trumbull section as part of eminent domain proceedings.” Seems like it would have been appropriate to relate this to the Supreme Court Kelo case, don’t you think? If I hadn’t added “Fort Trumbull” to my Google Alerts I would have missed this; a lot of other people probably did. Maybe that’s the point.

My Take

The fact that New London’s City Council and the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) won’t even move the houses and return the titles tells me that this is, to them, about a lot more than the Fort Trumbull project. I believe that it has nothing to do with reason, or fairness, or equity. Instead I believe that it’s all about putting a win in the eminent domain tyrants’ column, and finishing the messy (and in their minds, mandated) job of property confiscation that the Kelo decision enabled. They don’t want to be seen as the group that couldn’t finish the job of eviction even with a landmark Supreme Court decision buttressing their cause.

If this out-of-control pride is all that is keeping Council and the NLDC from a entering into what from here seems to be a perfectly reasonable settlement, shame on them. If it is a legal option, I believe that Governor Rell needs to threaten to pull the state money earmarked for the project, and be willing to back up that threat, even if it holds up continuation of the NLDC’s development plan.

Developers and city fathers everywhere will be watching to see who blinks, and what Governor Rell does. Hopefully, so will the rest of America.
____________________________

UPDATE: You would think that this item is unrelated, but maybe not — New London High School football coach Jack Cochran has a nasty habit of running up the score against his opponents, and, regardless of the score, will not take out his first team until the opposition puts in its second team. In response, effective this year, the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference passed a rule (which I strongly disagree with, for what it’s worth, as does the writer at the linked article) that a victory margin of 50 or more points earns the winning coach a suspension for the next game. Given how the City Council, the NLDC, and the local paper are treating the badly outgunned Kelo holdouts, it makes you wonder how many of them played football under Cochran, or share his run-up-the-score philosophy.

UPDATE 2: Just this morning, a Hartford Courant editorial (”Stop Shameful Eviction Plan”) came out firmly for the holdouts:

The New London City Council has ignored reasonable compromise, including the residents’ willingness to move their homes to a neighborhood site that wouldn’t interfere with the city’s plans.

….. (Gov. Rell) should use her power to insist that the development plan be revised to include the remaining homes. The state’s heavy investment in Fort Trumbull, its museum and the river walk give her the clout to insist on changes in the plans forged during the Rowland administration.

She alone can prevent this mistake from compounding.

What an image for Connecticut - to be a national example of how not to treat homeowners.

____________________________

Selected Previous Property Rights Posts:

• May 24 — Kelo Crunch Time Looms in New London: Part 2
• May 24 — Kelo Crunch Time Looms in New London: Part 1
• May 18 — Sand Springs, Oklahoma Church Spared (for now)
• Jan. 28 — Why Ending Kelo Is a National Issue Requiring a National Resolution
• Jan. 17 — Now It’s Churches, Too
• Jan. 15 — An Outrageous Handoff in LA
• Jan. 5, 2006 — Kelo Update: Maps, New Developer Deal, and Pressuring the Guv
• Dec. 26, 2005 — OpinionJournal.com Suzette Kelo Interview
• Dec. 15 — Kimberley Strassel on Oregon’s M37 and Judicial Tyranny
• Dec. 7 — Kelo Update: “the backlash so far has accomplished little“
• Nov. 21 — NY Times Notes Financial Viability Problem, Confirms Two Key Points, Omits Others
• Nov. 21 — As New London Turns–Institute for Justice Letter Writer Strikes Back
• Nov. 10 — As New London Turns: Kelo Update (111005)
• Oct. 20 — Kelo Update: As New London Turns (102005)
• Oct. 19 — Another Kelo Update: Degenerating into a Soap Opera
• Oct. 19 — Kelo-New London Update: City Severs Ties with Development Authority
• Sept. 22 — Kelo Situation Update: A Major Blowback against the Eminent Domain Tyrants?
• Sept. 17 — Kelo Residents Update: CT Governor Strikes Back
• Sept. 14 — Kelo Eviction Notices Issued in Apparent Defiance of CT Governor
• Aug. 29 — More Unhappy Kelo Ruling Supporters
• Aug. 15 — There’s a Backlash Against the Kelo Backlash
• Aug. 10 — What’s Happening to the Real People Involved in the Kelo Eminent Domain Case