Prescription for an Ill-fated Land Grab

Subject: (no subject)
Date: 11/3/2005 4:28:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: whitmananne@yahoo.com
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)

This Institute for Justice news article has been sent to you by Anne Whitman:

Click here: Institute for Justice: Property Rights Cases: New London, CT


Prescription for an Ill-fated Land Grab

$73 Million Later New London Has Nothing to Show For Eminent Domain Abuse
New London Development Corporation Fired

WEB RELEASE: October 18, 2005
CONTACT:
Lisa Knepper
(202) 955-1300
[Private Property]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, D.C.�After seven years of abusing the rights of residents and flouting the will of the public, the New London Development Corporation�the private agency that was given the government�s power of eminent domain�was fired last night by a unanimous vote of the City Council of New London, Conn. The NLDC has spent almost $73 million of the public�s money with literally nothing but empty fields and public conflict to show for the expense.

As reported by The Day, New London�s local newspaper, the City Council voted 6-0 last night to adopt three motions that �first revoked the designation of the NLDC as the city�s implementing agency for the Fort Trumbull development, then revoked the resolution that allowed the NLDC to take ownership of the abandoned Naval facility, and finally demanded that the NLDC transfer title to all its real estate in the project area to the city of New London.�

The NLDC has been ruthlessly pursuing its �plan� to raze the entire neighborhood. A goal of the project was to move out low and middle-income residents and replace them with high-end condos for richer people.

�The City gave its power away to a private, un-elected development corporation that had no accountability,� said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents the homeowners for free. �Despite the fact that its power came from the City of New London, and that the NLDC was obligated to keep the City informed, the City was not even a party to the development agreement. Instead, the NLDC�s primary relationship was with the State, which provided the bulk of the funds.�

Berliner said, �From the beginning, the City of New London heard that there was a huge amount of public opposition to portions of the project, especially to the use of eminent domain to remove an older but still vital neighborhood. Homeowners testified and begged to keep their homes, but the City Council refused to listen to them.�

Instead, the NLDC razed almost the entire neighborhood, pressuring out many homeowners under the threat of eminent domain. And rather than develop the nearly 90 acres of land it owns free and clear, the corporation instead continues to let the land sit barren. Throughout the fight, the NLDC has tried to claim that litigation against the unconstitutional taking of less than two acres of land on the fringe of the development has somehow held up the rest of the development project�a claim that flies in the face of reason.

�Throughout this battle, the City and the NLDC didn�t believe that the homeowners would fight to defend what rightfully belonged to them,� Berliner said. �The City and the NLDC thought they had the power and that they could simply steamroll anyone who opposed them.�

New London�s Fort Trumbull project had all the hallmarks of exactly what�s wrong with eminent domain for private use:

* Before the �public process� even began, the City and NLDC already planned to replace the neighborhood with an upscale hotel, upscale condos, and high-end office space.

* The City Council ignored quite obvious opposition to eminent domain.

* The project called for clear-cutting an established neighborhood and transferring prime real estate to a private developer through a sweetheart deal for only $1 per year for 99 years.
The City handed its power of eminent domain over to a private body with a private board and no public accountability.

* The property being condemned is not actually needed for the project.

* The City of New London was not even a signatory to the development contract.

* The City and the NLDC focused their efforts on litigation and justification, rather than getting the projects done in a way that satisfied both the Constitution and the public�s concerns.

* Having ceded control to the NLDC, the City was not the owner of the land slated for development.

* Demonstrating yet again its contempt for the New London homeowners, the NLDC issued eviction notices without even informing the City Council. After sending eviction notices to the Fort Trumbull homeowners in September of this year, the NLDC was forced to quickly back down when Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell demanded the agency abide by a moratorium on eminent domain it had agreed to earlier in the year. Last week, the New London Development Corporation�s legal counsel abruptly resigned after the NLDC�s board of directors rejected calls that its chief operating officer resign. Similar public calls have been made against NLDC President Michael Joplin.


Berliner said, �The City and NLDC may have won in court, but there is no question that through their arrogant and obstinate behavior they have lost the support of Connecticut citizens. And by demonstrating just how blatantly cities have been using eminent domain for private commercial development, they generated a firestorm of outrage that has swept the nation. In the end, we are confident the homeowners in New London, and home and business owners throughout the country, will win their battle against eminent domain abuse.�

�The big question that remains is whether the homeowners who stood up to this unaccountable agency will be allowed to remain in their homes,� concluded Scott Bullock, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice. �The Council should do what it should have done all along: protect the rights of its citizens to own private property and not have it taken from them for private development.�