The WND aptly article starts out, THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND.
The US Supreme Court recently ruled on Eminent Domain in landmark case of Kelo V. The City of New London — which in essence changed the previously accepted and prior case substantiated meaning of Eminent Domain to not only include ‘public use,’ as it had been in the past, but to now also include ‘private use’ which benefits corporate interests and the City to the detriment of individual property owners. This despite a moratorium on eminent domain cases that the Governor of Connecticut had put in place.
Despite all that, the City of New London has gone ahead with their plans to evict the residents and homeowners and threaten to collect rent for the last FIVE YEARS! Read on.
“They have sent us eviction letters and have given us 90 days to vacate,” homeowner Michael Cristofaro told WND. “As further insult to injury, they are requiring us to send them $600-a-month rent.”
They say it’s property-rights activists and limited-government commentators who are being critical about this ruling — like they are some sort of irrational radical for wanting Our Constitution to be upheld as it was intended.
In the highly controversial Supreme Court decision, the justices ruled 5-4 that the economic development and increased tax revenue resulting from the eminent domain action qualified as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for “public use,” such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.
Of course it has been criticized. Doh! No kidding.
And the back rent issue?
The city has previously threatened the homeowners with demands for back rent dating to 2000. Officials say that since they won the case, the homeowners actually have been living on city property for the last five years since they first began condemnation procedures.
In addition, buyout offers were based on the market rate in 2000, before most of the growth in the current real-estate bubble.
The New London Development Corporation, the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, first addressed the rent issue in a June 2004 letter to residents, calling the alleged debt retroactive “use and occupancy” payments.
Talk about conflict of interest. The city is supposed to be working for ALL the people — they are paid by tax money paid by all the people invarious ways and they are supposed to work on behalf of all the people.
This ruling can give an unfair advantage to corporations (public, private and/or ‘quasi-privite’ as they were called in the article, by giving them a financial tax revenue carrot to place before the noses of City officials in order to get what they want.
Apparently they also seem to think that on top of that, they can get a further revenue stream out of these poor unfortunate folks by saying they now owe RENT money for the last five years.
Talk about precedent setting nightmares. Wake up and smell the coffee!