Eminent Domain Outrage in Connecticut:
Obwon
November 13, 2009
Eminent Domain Outrage in Connecticut:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical Giant Pfizer to Leave New
London, Site of Major Housing Battle
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/13/eminent
-------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners in New London, Connecticut took
on the city�s leaders after they announced plans
to condemn all of the homes in one neighborhood
to make way for a private development project for
pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The city said it would
bring in thousands of jobs. After a 2005 Supreme
Court ruling against the homeowners, the entire
neighborhood was bulldozed. This week Pfizer
announced it is shutting down its research center.
----[includes rush transcript]----
Guests:
Dana Berliner, senior attorney at the Institute for
Justice. She represented the homeowners in Kelo
v. New London, in which the US Supreme Court
ruled that cities could condemn property because
other uses may produce an increase in tax dollars
and jobs.
Michael Cristofaro, resident of New London,
Connecticut, who lost his home in 2006 to eminent
domain.
------ Rush Transcript --------
This transcript is available free of charge. However,
donations help us provide closed captioning for the
deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank
you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...
------Related Links------
* Juan Gonzalez: "Eminent-domain outrage
in Conn. shows why Ratner's Yards plan stirs anger"
* Jeff Benedict "Little Pink House: A True Story of
Defiance and Courage"
Related Democracy Now! Stories
* Eminent Domain Ruling: Justices Uphold
Taking Property for Private Development
(6/28/2005)
*
------BEGIN------
JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn now to New London,
Connecticut, the site of one of the nation�s most
disputed eminent domain cases. In the 1990s, the
city�s leaders announced plans to condemn and
seize all of the homes in the New London
neighborhood of Fort Trumbull to make way for
a new private development project, which was to
include a hotel, office buildings, retail shops and
restaurants.
The proposed $75 million project was part of the city�s
efforts to spruce up the area for pharmaceutical giant
Pfizer, which had agreed to construct a $300 million
research facility adjacent to Fort Trumbull. The city
claimed the project would create 3,000 jobs.
Several homeowners refused to give up their homes,
and their case made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
In June, 2005, the court ruled by a 5-4 majority that New
London�s seizure of the homes for private development
was a permissible �public purpose.� The decision, Kelo v.
New London, infuriated millions of property rights
advocates across the country.
After the decision, the neighborhood was bulldozed.
AMY GOODMAN: The case is back in the news this
week. Pfizer has just announced it�s shutting down
its research center in New London and shifting 1,500
jobs to the nearby town of Groton. New London�s plans
to develop the area around the Pfizer plant appear to
have been abandoned, as well. The lots where families
once lived are now empty, covered with weeds.
We�re joined by two guests. Michael Cristofaro joins
us on the phone from New London. He lost his home
in 2006, when it was seized by the city of New London.
And Dana Berliner joins us in Washington. She�s a
senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. She
represented the homeowners in the case Kelo v.
New London.
Let�s begin with Dana Berliner. Talk about the
significance of this case right now.
DANA BERLINER: Well, what happened was
New London entered into an incredibly risky
speculative real estate deal. And like many
risky speculative real estate deals, it didn�t
work out. Now, if they had�if a private person
did that, we wouldn�t be here today discussing
it. The problem was that New London did it with
tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and
while violating other people�s rights and throwing
them out of their homes for it. What this all tells
us is eminent domain should not be used for
private development projects.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Michael Cristofaro, I�d
like to ask, your reaction when you heard the
news that Pfizer was pulling out? Apparently,
they didn�t even give any advanced notification
to the town leaders of New London that this was
happening. And could you talk about your reaction?
MICHAEL CRISTOFARO: Well, you know, the
town leaders say they didn�t have a clue on this,
but they actually did. They knew what was going
on. They just don�t want to admit it.
But when I heard the news, it really felt like
someone was basically stabbing me in my heart,
because it was like reliving the whole thing all
over again, that we lost our homes for nothing.
And that�s what it was about. I mean, it�s a
brownfield. And when someone comes in and
says, �You need to give up your home for the
betterment of the community,� and they have
this plan that�s basically based around Pfizer�s,
and all of a sudden Pfizer comes in and tells
them, �Hey, we�re leaving the area,� and there�s
eighty acres now sitting there empty, I�m
extremely hurt.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to play a short video
featuring the investigative journalist Jeff Benedict
and New London homeowner Suzette Kelo. Jeff
Benedict is the author of the book Little Pink House:
A True Story of Defiance and Courage.
-----Video transcript-------
JEFF BENEDICT: We�re entering the Fort
Trumbull neighborhood, which used to be a
thriving neighborhood in New London,
Connecticut. It was named after the historic
Fort Trumbull from the Revolutionary War
period that Benedict Arnold burned down.
And it was an immigrant neighborhood of
mostly Italian families. And this stretch right
here, where all these weeds are now sprouting
up, used to be homes�senior citizens, kids,
working middle-class families.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court
issued a decision called Kelo v. New London.
It�s probably the most controversial court decision
since Roe v. Wade. The difference was, this time
almost everyone in America was on one side:
everybody thought it was wrong. And that
decision stemmed from a fight, a street fight,
really, that took place in this neighborhood
over a seven-year period between a small
group of neighbors who fought against the
city of New London, who wanted to take their
neighborhood away. But the fight was led by
a nurse, a woman who had been living in this
neighborhood for the shortest amount of time.
Her name is Suzette Kelo.
SUZETTE KELO: This started when people
who thought they were better than us drove
through the Fort and looked at the view and
said, �What a beautiful view! What are these
scumbags doing living here?�
JEFF BENEDICT: The decision stood for
the idea that government, local government or
state government, can take people�s private land
or private homes and turn it over to a private
developer for private development or private
gain.
SUZETTE KELO: I came home from work on
the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and on the
front of my door was an envelope with condemnation
papers taped to my front door.
JEFF BENEDICT: All these homes and buildings
have seen the wrecking ball in the last couple years.
SUZETTE KELO: From me�not necessarily just
me, but from all of us�man, they ripped our hearts out.
What? Are you kidding me? I mean, that�s what they
did to us. They took everything away from us.
--------end video transcript-------
AMY GOODMAN: That excerpt describing what
happened in New London. Can you follow up,
Michael Cristofaro, this news, the week of Pfizer
leaving, actually going where Ms. Kelo went,
moved, to Groton, Connecticut. Who knows if
her home will be condemned again? But the fact
that they had gotten a tax abatement for ten years,
they were there for all that time, and as that tax
abatement is up, they are leaving, and your home
is bulldozed.
MICHAEL CRISTOFARO: Well, I mean, that hurts
even more, because, you know, the state and the
city�you know, Pfizer came in. They said what they
would like to see happen, you know, to the
neighborhood. And they had executives who
basically said they didn�t want to look out their
tenements down at�I mean, look out their windows
down at these tenements and, you know, �We
would like to have a biotech buildings and office
park there.� And so, that�s what the city did. They
accommodated them. And they gave them all these
tax breaks.
And the hopes and dreams were that this Pfizer
Global Research Center was going to draw all
these major corporations into New London, and
it was going to save them, you know, by increasing
the tax rolls. And here it is, ten years later, they
actually extended tax abatements an additional
three years to entice Pfizer to come here. And
here it is, the tenth year, and the tax abatements
are finally up, and they turn around and drop this
bombshell, saying, �We are leaving.�
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Dana Berliner, I�d like
to ask you�the fight of the homeowners in New
London really became a national cause, and as
a result of the furor over the Supreme Court
decision, many states began changing their
own laws. Could you talk about the movement
that developed after the decision?
DANA BERLINER: Absolutely. What happened
after the decision was an overwhelming tidal wave
of outrage on the part of just really practically
everyone in the country, except for city governments
and developers and planners. Everybody hated it.
The poll numbers ran somewhere between the
high 80s and the high 90s, in terms of disliking
the decision and disliking what happened. It
crossed all political lines.
And forty-three states changed their laws, and
most of those made really serious changes to
stop eminent domain for private development.
Connecticut, however, passed a law that didn�t
do anything at all. It passed a law that wouldn�t
have even stopped this taking. And there are a
few states that have done absolutely nothing,
which means that many home and business
owners throughout the country still are at risk
for exactly this kind of eminent domain abuse.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Michael Cristofaro, we have
right here�New York has not done much in this
respect, and we have two huge projects right here
in New York City: the Atlantic Yards project in
Brooklyn and the Willets Point development
project in Queens, both of which the local
government is trying to use eminent domain to
force out homeowners and businesses. I�m
wondering what counsel or advise you have
for those people in those neighborhoods that
are continuing to fight this effort?
MICHAEL CRISTOFARO: Well, I�m hoping that
with this news of Pfizer�s pulling out of New
London and leaving New London basically in a
hole, that, you know, New York will now look at
this and say, �You know what? Economic
envelopment and eminent domain does not
work, period.�
And as far as those property owners, continue
to fight. Fight. You know, stay in your homes,
businesses, until the very end. Do not let them
take you out of your homes. I mean, this is a
wrong decision. And those justices, those five
justices, were wrong. And this needs to be
revisited, and all of our rights need to be
protected again.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, one of the
justices in that 5-4 majority was David Souter,
who�s no longer on the court, has been replaced
by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Dana Berliner, any
sense from the hearings that were held for Judge
Sotomayor�s confirmation whether you have hope
that if this�if a similar eminent domain case comes
before the Supreme Court again, that she might
cast a vote the other way?
DANA BERLINER: I don�t think there was anything
in the hearings that would tell us that. I�m hoping,
though, that what has happened since will have
an effect on the court. The court�s decision basically
said, �If the city�s got a plan, then we�ll just trust that
they know what they�re doing. We won�t look at it.�
And it was evident, even at the time, that this project
was going to fail. And we showed that, and the
court said they didn�t want to hear about it. I�m
hoping that now, the next time they look at it,
they�ll realize cities don�t know what they�re
doing. They don�t know how to engage in risky
real estate deals. And this is not the kind of thing
that we should be using, eminent domain, in order
to allow private companies to make a greater profit.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you very much
for being with us, Dana Berliner, senior attorney at the
Institute for Justice�she represented the homeowners
in the Kelo v. New London case�and Michael Cristofaro,
resident of New London, Connecticut, who lost his
home in 2006 to eminent domain. Those lots, those
properties, those houses remain bulldozed today.
And you can go to our website at democracynow.org,
where we link to Juan Gonzalez�s piece today in the
New York Daily News on eminent domain.
Printer-friendly version
Email to a friend
Creative Commons License The original content of this
program is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United
States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work
to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program
incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For
further information or additional permissions, contact us.
----*---*----
Note: There are no guarantees that these projects, for
which the land is taken, will either be completed, or if
completed, will succeed. There are no bonds, no sureties
or other securities, to ensure that the "sponsors" won't
just walk away at any point, leaving the city with either
empty lots or useless buildings. There can be no guarantee
of public acceptance of the projects, even after they are
completed. Thus, if there are all these
unmanageable/unknowable risks, then the entire project is
best left to the private parties on both sides of the deal
to reconcile.
The use of eminent domain, in such matters, is merely
"salting the mine". Creating value for the
planners/buyers/operators, by ensuring that
land/homeowners/residents, cannot agree to leave at a price
they consider to be fair. The "fair price" will be
imposed/forced upon all, so that any projected benefit of
increase in land values, will accrue to the developers
first, the city second and none to the displaced. This is
because any increase in land value, will be carried on the
books of the new owners, as assets, which can be offset by
the use of expenses and thus never revealed.
Finally, this makes a mockery of real estate law! It
stands the very idea of ownership, on it's head! The idea
derives from the use of eminent domain, on behalf of
privately own railroads. But for railroads, much like
gov't uses, there is an overwelming public use interest,
because the railroads were needed to move industries into an
area and along it's routes, as well as making whole
communties, towns and cities accessible. So to put a
private business, that serves only itself to the largest
extent, on the same scale as a railroad, whose regional
public interests can be felt by all comers, is ludicrous.
-----