Posts Tagged ‘Kelo’

The Kelo Decision in Retrospect

Suzette Kelo

When we first started this site in the Spring of 2010, a lot of us were alarmed at what was happening to our country. It seemed like everywhere we looked the Government was growing larger, more powerful and we the people were being marginalized.

Our motto then as now was “Constitutionally Conservative.” This idea produced one of the first articles on our new site, Kelo.

You probably did not read the article; we had few site visitors at that time. Let’s refresh our memories. Kelo refers to Suzette Kelo, a middle aged woman who lived in her house in New London Connecticut. Then real estate developers, local politicians and the Pfizer Corporation decided that they wanted Ms. Kelo’s land and that of her neighbors for private land development. Using the laws of eminent domain, the government of Connecticut, with the blessing of that state’s Supreme Court, and later the blessing of the US Supreme Court, took Ms. Kelo’s property.

People across the nation were enraged. Here in Michigan, a ballot initiative saw 80% vote for a strict interpretation of eminent domain.

Why bring up Kelo again? All those bad old feelings brought back to the surface. Because it reminds us of why we unite and why we continue to insist that our country take the Constitution seriously.

A hell of a story from The Hartford Courant’s Jeff Benedict, who was present for an extraordinary encounter between Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Richard N. Palmer and Susette Kelo, the homeowner he once voted against in the infamous eminent domain case:

I had delivered the keynote address [at the New Haven Law Club] on the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London. Susette Kelo was in the audience and I used the occasion to tell her personal story, as documented in my book “Little Pink House.”

Afterward, Susette and I were talking in a small circle of people when we were approached by Justice Richard N. Palmer. Tall and imposing, he is one of the four justices who voted with the 4-3 majority against Susette and her neighbors. Facing me, he said: “Had I known all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently.”

I was speechless. So was Susette. One more vote in her favor by the Connecticut Supreme Court would have changed history. The case probably would not have advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Susette and her neighbors might still be in their homes.

Then Justice Palmer turned to Susette, took her hand and offered a heartfelt apology. Tears trickled down her red cheeks. It was the first time in the 12-year saga that anyone had uttered the words “I’m sorry.”

Palmer should be sorry. So should U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy, whose five votes upheld Palmer’s erroneous judgment and put the final nail in the coffin.

Would the Kelo decision been made by the State and US Courts if the officials of those courts held fast to the Constitution and the principles of a limited government? What do you think? Click Comment and let us know – we want to hear from you!

The Kelo Decision.

A women named Suzette Kelo lived in the home she owned in New London, Connecticut. The City wanted to take her property, under Eminent Domain, and give it to another private entity. In this case a realty development firm. She lost her case before the Connecticut State Supreme Court, and then appealed to the US Supreme Court. You can find a fair and lengthy discussion of the details here: Kelo v. City of New London. Eventually, she also lost her case before the US Supreme Court, and was forced to move from her home.

So the question is what is Eminent Domain and why is it important? Eminent domain enters the US Constitution in the 5th Amendment: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just  compensation.”

Throughout our history, the Courts have interpreted this wording to mean that the government can only take private property for public use, and may only do so when it offers just compensation. Over time however, the courts have whittled away at the essence of Eminent Domain when they thought they could do so behind the veil of economic gains.

Here is Michigan we have seen the negative effects that result when government acts without respect to private property rights.  Hamtramack, in the infamous Poletown disaster, was torn asunder when hundreds of businesses and homes were razed in order to build an auto plant that never came close to reaching the economic gains it promised. The private owner of the plant now, ironically, is owned by the taxpayers.

But what if the plant did finally create or even better the economic gains that it promised? Would this by itself be a justification for taking another’s property? We believe there is never justification for taking the private property of one individual and giving it to another private individual.

In the wake of Kelo the residents of Michigan spoke at the ballot box, and they spoke with great certainty. By a margin of 80 – 20 Michiganians passed Propostion 4 which prevents the taking of private property for the purpose of giving it to another private property.

After Kelo lost her home, the irony grew grotesque. First, the real estate development firm never bothered to finish the development and the land where Kelo’s home once stood is a vacant lot. But it gets worse. The prospective tenant of the redevelopment, the Pfizer corporation, which had secured a 10 tax abatement from the State of Connecticut, eventually abandoned the site altogether, when the abatement ran its course. So now, after throwing Kelo out, forcing others to sell and move and giving a 10 year tax abatement, there are still no tenants in the partially completed redevelopment.