@Liveforfreedom you handle contradicts yourself. You are criticizing these folks for defending our property rights.
Yes, The US Supreme Court says it was OK to throw people off their property's for the possibility of increasing the grand list for property taxes, which would benefit the whole community. Does this make it right? I don't think so. 43 states not including CT have passed laws protecting our rights to remain in our homes. Sounds like you are a big supporter of NLDC? Check out wikipedia for a more detailed description of Kelo VS. NL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v_New_London.
Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his decision.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
He also said "Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.
Was it right to take these properties? Yes, Legally they said they could. Was it morally right. NO it wasn't. I believe Clarence Thomas summed it up.
What NL had done was so wrong. I only hope that NL has learned there lesson. Oh, I forgot this is NL they never learn there lesson. Like Mr. Cristofaro said prove that they have learned something from this and pass that ordinance prohibiting property takings for economic development. I bet we will never see it.
The gang that couldn't shoot straight! A desalination plant, what a fool, how about replacing what was there, a nice neighborhood, less the rundown shabbiness. Can any one imagine one and two family homes, some condos, with a inject of shops and restaurants. Great potential, no vision. Good luck Ms. Mariani, I don't hold up much hope for your vision and leadership, prove me wrong!
Libertarians follow the U.S. Constitution.
This ruling was based on the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment says, in part, that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Kelo's supporters ranged from the Libertarian Institute for Justice, the lead attorneys on the case.
On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
@Linda G. - That is an excellent recommendation.
Please read " The Little Pink House " and get the facts .
Size10 - Woodbridge St is located where Parcel J. sits empty for the last 40yrs.
GiveMeaBreak, Give ME a break! Right Wingers!?? Get your history straight. Five members of The Supreme Court voted to allow this taking by eminent domain, what was the majorities voting political affiliations? Hint! It wasn't right wing!
This comment has been removed for violation of policy.
LiveForFreedom, so this happened to you. You say you are not "whining" about it, but it seems you are, since you brought it up. This is an opportunity for change.
"It still hurts," Cristofaro said. To those who say "get over it" "move on, you got a good price for your home" how do you put a price on a piece of yourself that has been in your family for generations? If something positive had come of this property, perhaps the sting would not have seemed so bad. So for all you right wingers, who are all about "our rights" saying "get over it", these home owners "rights" were taken away from them, no matter what the price.
Wondering if this is a story we can look forward to in The Day every year going forward.
What's magical about the eighth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision? Will we be subjected to a similar story on the ninth anniversary, 10th, 11th?
And what's news in this story? The Cristofaro family still feels sad and angry. The Fort Trumbull property remains undeveloped. The NLDC still exists, though with a different name and different leadership.
Must admit that I couldn't believe my eyes when I read what the mayor wants to put on the seized land, though. Very little of it would generate desperately needed property tax revenue. Please tell me this is either incomplete or inaccurate.
Bottom line is that the community - including those who lost their homes - needs to move forward. That's going to be harder to do if the local newspaper continues to dwell on the past.
The article mentions the Cristofaro's had a property on Woodbridge Street, that was also taken by eminent domain in 1970. Just where was Woodbridge Street?
I agree with MY Two Sense and Live for Freedom
Get over it people.
The needs of the many trump the rights of the few...and it gets worse every day.
This is the liberal socialist way.
Well meaning leaders and confused judges.
The authors of the constitution have rolled over in their graves so many times that even they are bored.
Stay tuned...
"Immigration" "reform".
Food stamp bloom.
"Affordable" health care.
You ain't seen nothin' yet.
I note that NewLondonFan has not weighed in on this topic.
So the government screwed them. That what the government does.
Move on. Don't dwell on the past. Get a life.
I too was a victim of eminent domain by the State of Connecticut. Am I still whining about it 20 years later?
Pick yourself up. Wipe off the self pity. Move forward.
That is the reason that New London is where it is... lots of bound hate, political maneuvers and financial hucksters.
This property will always have the ghost of Eminent Domain hanging on it. Just put a memorial sign on it with all of those displaced homeowners. They can come every year and have a memorial service.
I miss Hughies
Jack Bernhard:
you are correct!, these places are now being RENTED/Leased.
This case will live on for hundreds of years. The sad part about it was that it significantly eroded the credibility of the Supreme Court itself. From now on, more the "Roe vs. Wade", this case will be used as a litmus test for all potential Supreme Court Justices. Nobody will ever be able to trust any justice that affirms this case.
New London as to go from here as it did a couple hundred years ago when it was burned down. New London came back again.
The New England fighting spirit is still here in New London will prosper again.
Mike what your group did changed the ways of eminent domain for lots of property owners.
I would love to see Claire Gaudiani (spelling?) stand in the middle of that field and yell at the top of her lungs, "I was wrong! This will never be one hip little city!"
What a waste for the former owners and the city taxpayers.
While many will have much to say about the "anniversary, one idea that I think exemplifies unprocessed (researched) thinking here is the notion of desalinization. Perhaps it's a glib statement passed around.
Yes we are located on a river and estuary. But desalinization is a high cost/fossil input with little return as most attempts of this process have shown. The tip of a viable solution for desalinization process that is somewhat cost effective is at least a decade away according to researchers. Somehow having a river just doesn't seem to warrant this significant investment given the low return.
Wind and solar less cost prohibitive and much further along on the feasibility spectrum is worthy of an assessment, but with caution. Let's look at the problem we're trying to solve, and find the best solutions. Scaling these solutions should be done not to solve a land-use problem, but an energy problem. If they converge, great, but forcing them to happen is just bad decision making (and investment).
The issue with Fort Trumbull and the infamous eminent domain case would call for some kind of truth and reconciliation process to heal those wounds. For that to happen people need to want to heal - on all sides.
The last thing this city needs is yet another "shrewd" developer. The more sales pitches, grand promises and angles we hear, the faster we should distance ourselves from them. I want to once again acknowledge then-city councilor Lloyd Beachy who stood up at the start and said repeatedly this was all wrong. It's too bad there weren't more elected officials back then with his high standards of right and wrong, fairness and decency.
The last thing this city needs is yet another "shrewed" developer. The more sales pitches, grand promises and angles we hear, the faster we should distance ourselves from them. I want to once again acknowledge then-city councilor Lloyd Beachy who stood up at the start and said repeatedly this was all wrong. It's too bad there weren't more elected officials back then with his high standards of right and wrong, fairness and decency.
The state will have to do the same thing and take more people's land if it actually goes forward with the idea of extending route 11 all the way to route 95.
Whatever development pipe dreams the city of New London has for this property will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Should Something ever proceed, it will likely include residential units. Give six residential units to the six plaintiffs. Then maybe the bad karma associated with that property might begin to turn around. A shrewd developer could use such a plan to heal the wounds of the past, garner public support, and make a few dollars to boot!
All these plans for Fort Trumbull and no money to even build a tree fort.
Strange there is plenty of money to continue paying connected official's salaries! Great plan for the connected!
This has to be the worlds most fleeced piece of land.
Just a travesty of justice...all officials who were involved with employing eminent domain should be ashamed. These people have a warped and dangerous view of the role of government.
When you see the empty fields, you realize just how incompetent and corrupt that a runaway government can be....
I would like to see the supreme court say " look what we did, that's not right and now were going to have to fix it" Excitement by everyone especially New London Politicians was running wild during those times, with promises of grandeur and wealth for all. New London caused this mess and should fix it.
Give a developer a huge break on the land, just to get some thing started there.
And for the huge break for the developer has to give a huge break to the former residents that one lived their on a condo. So they can get their lives back again.
And when is the movie coming out?......
Regarding the proposed condo project: Is there a demonstrable need for condominiums in downtown New London? From what I understand, the complexes on Bank Street aren't even full. Am I wrong on this?
Looks like there's some nice ground cover growing. Maybe the State could stock some pheasants this fall. Very few hunting opportunities in the City.
My family lost significant amounts of land when route 9 was built. What if route 9 looked like route 11 does now?
Rather than invest in the future, NL had to pay off strident folks like this exorbitant amounts of money. I remember what that area looked like and those homes were not worth the price they were paid. This guy should be happier with the pay off as the residents of NL are now in a financial mess..By the way the supreme court upheld NL right to try and enable the future.
NL missed their chance and now no developer in their right mind would touch that turf. Unfriendly to business and strong on individual rights...NL is going down!
"Possibilities include a desalinization plant, a wind farm and a solar field. A municipal parking garage with ground-floor retail is also a possibilit"
-desalinize what and at what financial gain? We have plentiful reservoirs, we don't need to purify sea water...we live in New England, not the middle east...moonbat idea
-Windfarm? People protest offshore windmills, you think you're going to put a dozen up in city limits? Cost vs output...we have a nuke plant next door and we need wind? Moonbat idea
-solar. The cost is around $1 a watt for just the panel. You really need solar? The amount of time to recover the investment will be what? Over 10 years?
-parking garage for people who don't want to come to NL? Ok.
The city has high taxes and you're going to spend more? Does this stuff reduce taxes or create jobs?
GiveMeABreak (and others)
I think that you are missing the sarcasm and cynicism in the posts of many folks who are saying "get over it".
Perhaps what we are trying to say is YOU got what YOU asked for.
I acknowledge that some of the justices who voted in favor of this "abortion" were Bush and Regan appointees...but on the whole the seizing of this property is closely aligned with liberal and socialist agendas where the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few.
Redistribute....raise taxes...increase programs...increase food stamps...increase spending...
YAY LIBERALS! (Pssssst...for GiveMeABreak: That too was sarcasm)