“Insult to Injury” Defined
Not content with simply taking its citizens’ homes, the city of New London is charging them back rent for the time they stayed in their homes and fought the case in court.
I kid you not.
It’s the eminent domain analogue to the Chinese government’s practice of executing political prisoners and billing the family for the cost of the bullet.
(Via Ed Brayton.)
UPDATE: For those of you who don’t trust a story unless you see it in a big paper, the same facts are reported here in USA Today. (Via Jeff G.)
Patterico:
My own take on this is here. I hope this is all just some horrible misunderstanding (or outright fabrication), but I fear it isn’t. It’s not being covered so far by the MSM… but of course, that doesn’t mean anything anymore, if indeed it ever did.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/17/2005 @ 2:35 amMunicipalities can act pretty despicably in eminent domain cases. On the other hand, generally, when a judgment is stayed pending appeal the prevailing party gets the benefit of the intervening delay when the appeals are over. It collects statutory interest on its judgment and its court costs. A landlord is still entitled to his rent when an eviction is stayed –often a court will order ongoing periodic payment of “use and occupancy” as a condition of the stay. In other instances a substantial appeal bond is required. There are both benefits and burdens in the ownership of real estate and they both belong to the legal owner, including accession or diminution in value. Legally, the city’s position is not all that outrageous. Politically, it’s a different story. I seem to be playing devil’s advocate here but no more than the Supreme Court did in Kelo.
nk (41da82) — 8/17/2005 @ 5:41 amNK:
I know you are not actually defending the city’s actions, but your the points you made bring a couple of things to mind:
1. The whole purpose of this “taking” is ostensibly to benefit the public. The moral authority for such action, as well as part of the legal argument supporting it, in essence, is the “needs of the many…”
2. The moral authority for the city’s action in Kelo is undercut by this pinchpenny posturing, assuming that is actually what is happening. From a purely legalistic standpoint, you may be right (I am not a lawyer, but your argument sounds plausible).
However, it is doubtful that the city’s action can be seen as anything other than pure revenge for having its authority challenged in court, or as an attempt to recover some of its legal costs. Both motivations appear contemptible in the extreme to me, given the fact that they are focibly disposessing citizens of their rightful property.
Perhaps the voters will remember this shameful affair when the election comes around.
Glenn (b3fb96) — 8/17/2005 @ 6:12 amI have been on the defending end of an eminent domain case where the taking authority was sending letters to my client’s tenants two years before the filing of the case in order to frighten them into moving — a vacant building has a lower market value than a fully occupied building and there is no payment to the tenant for the leasehold.
But I will stick to legalisms. If Kelo was an appeal from a final judgment then the effective date of the taking was when the trial court entered that judgment, I guess, in 2000. In this scenario the city is on pretty solid footing that the owners get the money the trial court ordered then and not a revalution based on current market. There still needs to be pretty clear authority in the statutes and rules governing appeals for the city collecting back rent. I do not know Connecticutt’s law. The owners might have some kind of case there.
If this were an interlocutory appeal, then the effective date of the taking is when the trial court enters final judgment after remand and 2005 market prices, and no rent, would apply. If I were the owners’s attorney, the first thing I would do is see if there is any way to attack the finality of the “order” or “judgment” that led to the appeal. There are very important technicalities which determine whether or not a judgment is final and now it is important not to overlook any of them.
nk (f58916) — 8/17/2005 @ 6:48 amThis reinforces my opinion that the problem here is New London is filled with dickwads, not that private-to-private eminent domain is allowed. It does seem now that the mission is for these bozos to get their jollies inflicting pain, rather than by building stuff. Where is the political pressure there to stop this nonsense?
There are supurb results in East Palo Alto, where they mowed down some nasty neighborhoods and put in a huge IKEA and a big law office tower. I’m a little biased, though. Some guy approached my car there once while I was stopped at the light on way from hwy-101 to the Dumbarton Bridge. He tried to open my passenger side door which luckily was locked. Fuck that. Bye bye neighborhood.
Keep in mind one’s will can demand that property not be sold for 50 years – making it otherwise impossible to build big projects in places with lots of little lots, even if all parties agree on sale prices.
Shredstar (e73f56) — 8/17/2005 @ 8:25 amBeating Dead Horses
Today’s dose of NIF – News, Interesting & Funny … Hump Day!
NIF (59ce3a) — 8/17/2005 @ 8:32 amThat’s all well and good from a legal perspective. I have no doubt they CAN get the money. That doesn’t mean the SHOULD do it.
That city has been made to look like an ass nationwide. There are anti-Kelo bills being passed or considered all over the place. If I was on that city council I’d vote to forgive the rent and move on. They’re starting to look like monsters.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 8/17/2005 @ 8:37 amGood point. Maybe the State of Connecticut should take advantage of the Kelo decision, condemn the entire city of New London, and have some private developer start over from scratch.
Xrlq (816c74) — 8/17/2005 @ 10:55 amWhen I first read this I thought that the New London City Council can’t be that politically stupid. The Kelo case has cast them as the most evil group of thugs in the U.S. (somewhat unfairly, since this goes on all over the nation) and the Supreme Court as their partners in crime. For political cover I’d try to be just as nice to the Kelo gang as I could. Since the Council is not a private group, but the elected representatives of the people of that city. Maybe there can be a fund established to help these property owners affected by this case and anyone else trying to escape from the “iron curtin” around New London to the freedom outside the city limits. The argument the mayor made for their initial decision is that New London is a dying town with shrinking population and tax base. It sure seems their decisions just further the death throws. I wouldn’t be surprised if Phizer changes their mind about building there and the tax base of this “ghost town” continues to decrease.
Lew Clark (e7ce98) — 8/17/2005 @ 8:01 pm[…] H/T Patterico […]
The Armageddon Project » Completly Beyond Reason (baa0b4) — 8/18/2005 @ 7:33 pmI want to know if real estate taxes & assessments were collected. If so, they should be returned, with interest.
htom (412a17) — 8/18/2005 @ 9:12 pm