Supremes Refuse to Hear Eminent Domain Abuse Appeal
This is really weak (New London Day link requires free registration after a short period of time, and a subscription after a week):
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear the eminent domain case of two Port Chester, N.Y., businessmen who planned to build a CVS pharmacy on their property until it was seized by the village so that another developer could build a Walgreens pharmacy there.
The plaintiffs asked the court to hear the case and clarify its 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London …..
….. Didden and Bologna have alleged that they were told by the Village of Port Chester to meet with its chosen developer for the redevelopment district, G&S Port Chester. On Nov. 5, 2003, G&S Port Chester principal Gregg Wasser allegedly demanded a 50 percent interest in the CVS project or an $800,000 payment from Didden and Bologna and said the village would take their property within the redevelopment district if they did not comply.
Didden and Bologna refused, and one day later the Village of Port Chester filed a condemnation petition to take their property so that it could be leased to G&S Port Chester for construction of the Walgreens.
…. Claiming that the condemnation was for purely private financial gain and not for a public purpose, Didden and Bologna sued in the case, Didden v. Village of Port Chester. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case in 2004.
Didden and Bologna appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which also let the condemnation stand, saying the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. City of New London didn’t allow Didden and Bologna to challenge a taking within a redevelopment district.
The court said Didden and Bologna could only challenge the taking of their property by challenging the entire redevelopment plan, which had been expanded in 1999 to include their property, and that a statute of limitations prevented such a challenge to the plan.
In other words, Catch-22 — The Kelo ruling supposedly doesn’t allow the challenge of a taking within a redevelopment district, and it’s too late to challenge the validity of the whole redevelopment district, because of the time it took to litigate the challenge the within-the-district taking!
What a disgrace.









