Pearly Gates is...Quick ReferenceRecent postsLinksRichard's other blog:Hall Of Fame:
The "Real" Media:
Halosphere:
Minor League Affiliates:
Other Baseball Blogs:
Other Random Crap (in a good way):
Soccer:Archive
Blog*Spot ArchivesContactRichard Ceccarelli Josh Mandir |
Wednesday, August 17, 2005New London to Kelo: You owe us rentHow does the New London city council get around? You know, with balls this big? Seems like it would be uncomfortable:
"And there are more storms on the horizon. In June 2004, [New London Development Corp.] sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents.Bastards. Comments:And, by the way, they propose to pay the affected individuals fair market value as of 2000. That's a lot of dough. Without passing judgment on the decision, it's important to know what the parties were aware of beginning in 2000. A lawyer for the residents, Scott Bullock, responded to the letter on July 8, 2004, asserting that the NLDC had agreed to forgo rents as part of a pretrial agreement in which the residents in turn agreed to a hastened trial schedule. Bullock called the NLDC's effort at obtaining back rent "a new low." If this is true, then it's pretty inexcusable for New London. So far all we have is the word of the residents' lawyer. At the very least, it's evidence that *somebody* knew at the time that rent and such would be an issue. Wonder if they got it in writing. "Without passing judgment on the decision, it's important to know what the parties were aware of beginning in 2000." In my mind, the land couldn't be considered "city-owned property" until the residents had exhausted their options for appeal. Well that's great, but what's in your mind and what the law says aren't always one in the same. If I get convicted of murder, I can go around saying "in my mind, I'm not guilty until I've exhausted my options for appeal", but that doesn't get me out of jail. You're right - I don't decide law. But judges do, and I'm relatively certain any reasonable jurist would see that - in a system that provides checks on government power at all levels - eminent domain would be no exception. Are you honestly suggesting that citizens who are targeted for eminent domain do not have full access to the legal system intended to protect them? A local government can take their property, and they are left with no recourse to question the legality of such an action? Basically, the city is trying to claim that they have owned the property since they first claimed it. Because there were court cases challenging that and life went on as if the property was still that of the people who had owned it AND they had not yet received "just compensation" (or at least as far as I know), it seems obvious to me that the original owners still owned it. A murderer may be sentenced to death, but he is not put to death until all of his appeals are used (his status quo is being alive). Or even if a convicted criminal gets their conviction overturned, you may claim that they had to spend that time in jail for a crime they did not commit...well, the status quo has become for them to be in jail because they were convicted of a crime. Are you honestly suggesting that citizens who are targeted for eminent domain do not have full access to the legal system intended to protect them? A local government can take their property, and they are left with no recourse to question the legality of such an action? What the hell are you talking about? I'm suggesting that when a higher court allows a lower court decision to stand, the lower court's decision is operative as of the date it was originally reached. This isn't groundbreaking. Where did I ever say that they shoulnd't have been able to go to court at all? it seems obvious to me that the original owners still owned it. Maybe if you completely ignore the fact that the residents' lawyer specifically noted that the residents were aware that back rent could be an issue. From that fact, it looks like even the Kelo group were aware that the ownership status was, at best, in limbo. How is New London's attempt to collect rent on people who were litigating the seizure of their land any different from a criminal court tacking 10 years onto a defendant's sentence because he wasn't in jail when he was appealing his conviction? The city government of New London needs to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. And whatever development replaces the residents' property needs to be burned to the ground. |
