Susette Kelo's revenge: New London regrets eminent domain fiasco

March 10, 9:38 AMCivil Liberties ExaminerJ.D. Tuccille

Previous Next

6 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Civil Liberties Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Susette Kelo's house -- the home that became the
symbol of the property-rights controversy.

A few years too late, officials in New London, Connecticut, regret using the power of eminent domain to seize homes to make way for big-ticket developments that were supposed to fill the city's tax coffers. The move sparked an extended legal battle and public controversy, culminating in an infamous U.S. Supreme Court decision and a host of state-level laws and voter initiatives around the country. It also, incidentally, left bad feelings and unused land in its wake.

”Never, ever delegate the powers of eminent domain,'' Beth Sabilia, the mayor at the time of the property-rights battle, told attendees at a panel discussing the controversy and its aftermath. Sabilia referred to the city's role in assigning eminent domain powers to the New London Development Corp., a move that failed to distance city officials from the subsequent land grab even as it limited their decision-making power in the process.

Sabilia added, ”My lesson is, if the state offers you $70 million, say 'no thank you'. Yes, the city won, but no one in the City of New London really won. In New London we are all connected. I don't care if you live in a lean-to or a 4,000-square-foot house. It's where we all take our babies home.”

Sabilia has much to regret. She revealed that she personally received 4,000 email death threats and that New London still suffers bad feelings from the successful campaign to force some residents from their homes to make way for a project that was intended to generate higher tax revenues. The battle led to the Kelo v. New London decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court essentially said that governments have the legal power to displace property owners for economic development -- that is, people can be booted from their homes and businesses if anybody else can be found who would pay higher taxes at the site.

New London never actually received those taxes. The case's notoriety dampened interest in doing business at the stolen property, and then the economic downturn killed the project. Journalists visiting the scene have found the land to be "barren."

That means the city lost money on the deal: the cost of the legal battle plus the potential tax revenues from homes and businesses forced out and never replaced.

Since the Kelo decision, dozens of states have revised their laws, either through the legislature or through citizen initiatives, to outlaw land grabs of the sort perpetrated in Connecticut. At least one bank -- BB&T -- announced it won't fund projects on land seized for economic development.

Outright theft of land to increase tax revenues is unpopular, and probably politically less supportable now, because people like Susette Kelo fought New London to keep their homes.

But eminent domain remains a dangerous weapon, even when used as intended. In New Jersey, the towns of Fairview and Cliffside Park have joined together to steal a warehouse one town had been leasing from Bridget Tapkas and her family -- just because. Land seized for "public use" hurts property owners just as much as land taken to be handed over to a favored developer. In the end, all the owner can do is spend scarce resources in court to try to prevent government officials from giving themselves a discount on the price.

Maybe governments just shouldn't be allowed to steal.

Below is a good documentary on the New London battle.

email J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com