From the Fairfield County Weekly:
Those who believe in the adage “when it rains, it pours” might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city’s original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It’s a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.
In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as it was in 2000.
[…] “I can’t replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment],” says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: “It’s a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low.”
And there are more storms on the horizon. In June 2004, NLDC 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.
[…] With language seemingly lifted straight from The Goonies , NLDC’s lawyers wrote, “We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case.” They warned that “this problem will only get worse with the passage of time,” and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be.
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.”
Well, maybe so. But for my money, the state claiming they can take ownership of your home because you haven’t yet gotten around to, y’know, using it as an industrial park, still holds a considerable lead in the “new lows” competition.
****
h/t John Cole; more from
If the citizens of New London don’t boot out of office every politician responsible for this thuggery, then they have no one to blame but themselves.
Personally, I’m amazed they haven’t lynched someone.
Does a load of rock salt count as “rent”?
Unbelieveable. I thougth sodomy was illegal in most states? And they don’t even have the common courtesy to offer the post-coital snuggle. It’s more like a “So are you gonna call a cab now or what?”
Turing: mother, as in “You’ve got be be motherfucking kidding me.”
Remember the second amendment?
Yeah, this was the sort of crap the second amendment is there to protect against.
There’s GOT to be a special level of Hell for the politicos of New London. Assholes, all of ‘em.
I don’t know, Shank, I get more of a “cook me breakfast and then call yourself a cab. Bitch.” That kind of warm fuzzy.
I think this is certainly the new low. It’s one thing if they’re allowed to “adequately” compensate you for your house. It’s another thing entirely to pay you much less than your house is worth and bill you for the privilege.
I have trouble believing that all this is being done for higher tax revenues, especially given the unecessary vidictiveness of this current action. Is one of the New London city councilmen a commercial real estate developer?
Let me repeat my position. I am not disapproving of the person who feels that the defense of their home requires themselves to be armed and to occasionally fire upon jerkweeds like these government officials, preferably not aiming to kill. I neither endorse nor disapprove of such actions.
Turing word what, as in “WHAT YOU SAY”
If that isn’t tyranny in action, the word has no meaning. Everyone responsible for this outrage should resign for shame. They have made thugs of the people of New London.
I have never been more satisfied with my decision to leave the ranks of the lawyers then I have been after reading that.
The only hope I have for these people is that their case ends up in front of an elected judge.
Where is the local media asking the politicos of New London about their stand on this bit of legal goonery?
Anybody else reminded of the stories of the chinese government billing the families of executed prisoners for the cost of the bullet?
That does it.
I hate to go all “Eric Rudolf”, but I want a constitutional amendment to take back the property rights the constitution used to protect.
SW: her
…as in, “Master of her domain”
Vote the thugs out of office – never – this is Connecticut where the voters pride themselves on electing political trash. Example: A “Catholic” state and every politician they put into nat’l office supports partial birth abortion- including the hand-wringer Joe Leiberman. Nice crowd of people? Rush says it’s the worst! Don’t get in their way when they drive either. Me – I’m too old to leave
What I want to know is if they paid taxes on those properties while the lawsuit proceeded.
If they did, they shouldn’t owe rent, or their taxes should be returned (with interest).
Wait a moment … if the city accepted the taxes, that would be a demonstration that the city recognized the ownership of the property, and the attempt to claim rent some kind of fraud!
Hey,
Can somebody find an email address for these size xxx asshats. I’d like to let them know what I think about this steaming pile of delight.
Thanks,
Jake
If the city took possession of the land five years ago, did they also pay for the land five years ago? If not, they clearly owe the dispossessed owners back interest and penalties.
And after the first late payment (that would also be five years ago), the city owes interest at the special, usurious rate reserved for those more than 15 minutes late on any payment, of course. For more information about how this works, check your friendly, local credit-card company.
My question is, if any of these people have still been paying off their mortgages, will New London reimburse them for the payments they’ve made on property that “belonged” to the city?