Kelo News London Post-Eviction Vote Update, Part 1 — News and Developments

A REMINDER OF WHERE THINGS STAND

Kelo and Cristofaro remain in their homes, pending eviction and demolition. The high-powered, politically-connected Italian Dramatic Club (IDC) also remains, but will stay right where it is. That’s because the high-powered, politically-connected IDC was arbitrarily exempted from eminent domain by the City of New London and The New London Development Corporation (NLDC) in the late 1990s. The Supreme Court rendered its outrageous Kelo v. New London decision last year in full knowledge of the exception made for the high-powered, politically-connected IDC by the powers that be. (I am emphasizing the treatment of the high-powered, politically-connected Italian Dramatic Club because I believe it remains the dirtiest and most inexcusably underreported aspect of this entire corrupt enterprise.)

NEWS OF THE PAST WEEK

A number of new items have come out in the past week that should be noted:

• The amounts back fees and charges the two holdouts allegedly owe have been revealed.
• The city is not disclosing the terms of its settlements with the holdouts during the previous week, in what many believe is defiance of state disclosure law.
• A New London Day online (yet in my opinion probably reliable) poll shows strong opposition to, and very little support for, Council’s eviction vote.
• Connecticut Governor Rell stood firm in her recommendation that immediate-family-transferable titles be given to the two holdouts, and that their dwellings be removed to a appropriate spots in Parcel 4A.
• William Von Winkle, who settled in the final minutes before the fateful June 5 Council meeting, spoke out about why he settled, and expressed solidarity with the remaining holdouts and their cause.

(Note: All New London Day articles require registration after one day, and a paid subscription after seven days.)

What about Those Back Fees, Rents, Taxes, Etc.?

A week before the eviction vote, it was reported that the City would seek $946,000 in back rents, taxes, fees, etc. from the six remaining holdouts. Now that all but two have settled, the obvious question that no one except The New London Day is sufficiently curious enough to report about is “What do Susette Kelo and the Cristofaros (supposedly) owe?”

Here’s what The Day’s Elaine Stoll reported last week (about halfway through the article):

The city has maintained it is entitled to seek use and occupancy fees dating to the time of the taking, a position Bullock disputes. By the city’s calculation, Kelo owes $68,800 in use and occupancy fees through June 1 for her house at 8 East St., which the city legally owns but that she continues to occupy. The city deposited $123,000 in escrow to compensate Kelo for the value of her former property.

The Cristofaro family owes $96,000 in use and occupancy fees and third-party rent through June 1 for the house at 53 Goshen St., according to city calculations. The city deposited $150,000 in escrow to compensate Cristofaro.

Of course, The Institute for Justice and the holdouts hotly dispute the city’s claims. Similar claims asserted against the then-seven holdouts caused national outrage last summer when the NLDC sent out eviction notices in defiance of Governor Rell.

The city’s willingness to stick to those claims when push comes to shove makes the city’s apparent defiance of disclosure law discussed in the next item extremely important.

Is There a Legal Requirement to Make Settlements Public?

It appears that the answer is “yes,” based on reporting done by The New London Day’s Ted Mann:

To the state Freedom of Information Commission, it sounds like a slam dunk: If the City of New London has signed settlement agreements with some of the plaintiffs in the Fort Trumbull redevelopment, the city must disclose how much those former occupants will be paid.

But in the course of New London’s famously fitful urban-renewal project, why should anything come easily, even what city leaders see as the good news?

New London officials familiar with the settlements — including City Law Director Thomas Londregan, Mayor Beth Sabilia, City Manager Richard Brown, and Michael Joplin, president of the New London Development Corp. — all refused on Tuesday to disclose the details of the settlements reached in recent days with four of the six remaining plaintiffs, despite the fact that attorneys at the state commission were confident the law requires them to do so.

“There’s no reason for them not to give that out,” said Thomas A. Hennick, the commission’s public education officer. “There’s no exemption for that.”

The refusal to reveal details of the agreements with four plaintiffs — William Von Winkle, Charles Dery, Richard Beyer and Thelma Brelesky — ensured that it would remain unclear what conditions, financial or otherwise, led the plaintiffs who battled the seizures of their properties for years to finally agree to relinquish them to the city and the NLDC.

….. The Day sent written requests for copies of the settlement agreements to Londregan and to Rell’s staff on Tuesday.

The article also recites the reasons why city officials believe they can keep the agreements confidential, but Mann notes that none of the reasons are valid under the state’s disclosure laws.

It’s “interesting,” to say the least, that Council and the NLDC, in what I see as a cynical negotiating tactic, are apparently willing to flout disclosure laws so breezily while holding Susette Kelo and the Cristofaros to the letter of the Supreme Court’s ruling on eminent-domain law.

As they say, “developing….”

Mayor’s Supposed Majority Support for Eviction Remains Awfully Quiet

An online New London Day poll taken on Wednesday through Saturday to gauge reaction to Council’s eviction decision Monday came back with these results:

Even given four choices, almost 66% of respondents want to do what the Governor recommended in an attempt to break the impasse last week (relocate to Parcel 4A and return the deeds). Though it is an online poll, The Day’s limited circulation, its non-inclusion in Google News, and its registration wall lead me to believe that poll participants are generally from the local area, and that there is a very good chance that the above is a fair reflection of local sentiment (and no, I didn’t vote!). If I’m correct, the Mayor Beth Sabilia’s claim to have majority backing is hysterically false. In fact, only 25% support the two items that could be seen as what the Mayor and Council’s majority want (the last two choices listed).

The Governor Remains Firm

While of course holding out hope for negotiated settlements, it’s clear from what the Governor said last Thursday, covered in an AP report that was, as far as I can tell carried only in regional papers, that she feels that her recommendations were reasonable and should be followed:

Rell says her office trying to settle with New London homeowners

….. “I have asked (state mediator Bob) Albright to work throughout the day and late into the night to try to reach a settlement with those two homeowners,” Rell said. “If that is not feasible, hopefully the City Council will come back and take my suggestion once again and perhaps go in that direction. But right now we continue negotiations.”

As you might expect, The New London Day didn’t like the headline used by The Hartford Courant above, which was also used by The Boston Globe and TV station WTNH. The Day went with “Gov. Rell Still Trying To Forge A Settlement In Fort Trumbull.”

Von Winkle Speaks Out

William Von Winkle, who owned three properties, was left defenseless when the Governor did not extend her title-return recommendation to rental properties, despite the protests of The Institute for Justice’s Scott Bullock. Here’s what Von Winkle had to say last week:

Former Fort Trumbull property owner William Von Winkle spoke out Tuesday on his decision to accept a financial settlement with the city, whose seizure of his and other properties by eminent domain was upheld last June by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I really didn’t want to settle and would have preferred to keep my buildings. But without the governor or the City Council supporting keeping rental homes in Fort Trumbull, I did not have much of a choice,” Von Winkle said in a statement released through Institute for Justice senior attorney Scott Bullock.

“I am very proud of the battle me and other Fort Trumbull property owners fought and are still fighting,” Von Winkle said. “It is a case that is really changing the nation. Eminent domain for private development is wrong. I believed that since this fight started and I will always believe that.”