The latest C-Poll is closed. You can read all about it here!

August 16, 2005

New London adds insult to injury after Kelo win

I'm having trouble getting my mind to comprehend the audacity of the New London, Connecticut city planners. Fresh from their victory in the Kelo eminent domain case, the wonderful folks at the New London Development Corporation have served notice on the plaintiffs that they have been living on city land for the past five years (back to the point where the seizure was announced), and that they owe back rent for their stay there—to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases.

But wait—there's more! Any holdout who happened to be renting their property to someone else during the five year case will have to turn over all rental proceeds to the city (even if that is the landlord's only source of income).

The city's lawyers were positively giddy as they presented these demands:
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.
But wait—there's more! NLDC's buyout offers are based on 2000 market prices, which are far below current prices. This basically means that the Kelo 7 won't be able to afford to buy another house in town.

I have a question for New London residents: How many of you are planning to vote for a single one of the city officials with direct or indirect influence over this case? If you are, does that mean you are okay with the monstrous behavior of those officials? But then again, it wasn't your property (plus five years of your life) that was taken, so what's the big deal?

No comments: