|
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 Corporationthe private agency that was given the
governments power of eminent domainwas fired last night by a
unanimous vote of the City Council of New London, Conn. The NLDC has spent
almost $73 million of the publics money with literally nothing but empty
fields and public conflict to show for the expense.
As reported by The Day, New Londons local newspaper,
the City Council voted 6-0 last night to adopt three motions that first
revoked the designation of the NLDC as the citys 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 NLDCs 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 projecta claim that flies in the face
of reason.
Throughout this battle, the City and the NLDC
didnt 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 Londons Fort Trumbull project had all the
hallmarks of exactly whats 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 publics 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 Corporations legal counsel abruptly resigned after the
NLDCs 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.
Institute for Justice 1717 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel (202) 955-1300 Fax (202) 955-1329
Copyright © 1991-2005
[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further
information please refer to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |