Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

We're turning into communist!!!(eminent domain story)


Island Boy

Recommended Posts

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=4996239&nav=3YeX

(New London-WTNH, June 6, 2006 5:10 PM) _ The eminent domain battle continues in New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood.

Two tenants are still refusing to pack up and leave. This comes just one day after the city decides to move ahead with the eviction process.

Michael Cristofaro is one step closer to losing his family home.

New London Mayor Beth Sabilia says, "The City Council has authorized the Director of Law to begin the process to obtain the properties at Fort Trumbull."

Sabilia says, "There will be no bulldozers rumbling down at the Fort. There's a misconception out there that we have Judicial Marshals in the wings to remove people. We don't."

Instead, it's lawyers waiting in the wings. The next step is housing court.

The deadline for homeowners to settle with the Development Corporation came and went last week, but just before last night's city council meeting, the family that lives here did settle for an undisclosed amount of money.

That family, the Von Winkles, recently went through the tragedy of losing son Derek Von Winkle. He was shot and killed ten days ago in Groton. That leaves just Susette Kelo, for whom the Supreme Court case was named, and Michael Cristofaro's family.

Michael Cristofaro says, "We're turning into a communist country when they're able to tell you, you know what, we have a better use for your house, you need to get out."

Sabilia says, "The City of New London owns the properties and has owned the properties since 2000. The US Supreme Court, almost a year ago to the day, affirmed our ownership of those properties."

Cristofaro says he will not give up, even if he isn't sure what he'll do next. The mayor says the development here will be an economic engine for the city and even the whole region and they will find a way to remove the holdouts.

Sabilia says, "This economic engine will benefit not only the 25,000 residents of the City of New London in providing for cleaner, safer streets and better schools, but it will act as an economic engine for the rest of Southeastern Connecticut."

The next step is to take the two holdouts to housing court. The mayor, who is also a lawyer, says those proceedings could take several more months.

We could not get in touch with Susette Kelo today, but Mike Cristofaro says she is very upset.

How in the hell is this legal in this country??? :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit, it isnt something we have to deal with much down here in the sticks....I don't think it would go over to well with some of these country folk.

Im from the sticks too(still live there). We might not like it, but the awful truth is its all legal. We are freakin Russia!! :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im from the sticks too(still live there). We might not like it, but the awful truth is its all legal. We are freakin Russia!! :doh:
freaking Russia with a new baseball stadium for the Washington Nationals.

...In Russia they take your house and send you to Siberia. In Connecticut, they take your house and pay you $500,000. I don't think it's quite the same thing.

...also, the thread title needs an "s" in it - I was tempted to respond with "all your base are belong to us."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the land they grabbed to give to Pfizer, no?

I live in CT. THe reason for the homes being taken is for Condos and a waterfront park with shopping.

It is scary to think that your home can be taken. However the amount of money most of these homeowners negotiated with the contractors to give up thier house instead of going to court was significant. twice the value in some cases and more.

This has been going on for a long time and the supreme court did nothing to stop it which was shocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

freaking Russia with a new baseball stadium for the Washington Nationals.

...In Russia they take your house and send you to Siberia. In Connecticut, they take your house and pay you $500,000. I don't think it's quite the same thing.

...also, the thread title needs an "s" in it - I was tempted to respond with "all your base are belong to us."

I live in CT. THe reason for the homes being taken is for Condos and a waterfront park with shopping.

It is scary to think that your home can be taken. However the amount of money most of these homeowners negotiated with the contractors to give up thier house instead of going to court was significant. twice the value in some cases and more.

This has been going on for a long time and the supreme court did nothing to stop it which was shocking.

I understand being paid "fair market value" and all that, but to some, say their house was built by the great-grandfather, stayed in the family...all that stuff....money will never be able to replace what that piece of property staying in their family means to them.....

Giving up my house for condos and waterfront shopping for "the greater good"?? Sorry...find someone else to take from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand being paid "fair market value" and all that, but to some, say their house was built by the great-grandfather, stayed in the family...all that stuff....money will never be able to replace what that piece of property staying in their family means to them.....

Giving up my house for condos and waterfront shopping for "the greater good"?? Sorry...find someone else to take from.

The problem is that everyone has a sob story like that.

Take the new Nationals stadium. There were a bunch of gay bars down there and they all said "this is our community - where will we go now?" Almost anyone can come up with some sentimental reason why their property is incredibly important to them, and it's almost impossible to draw clear lines.

The way to police this, like KAOSkins said, is to vote out the city council or whoever is behind the decision. If it's really that outrageous, you should be able to find a lot of people to support you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to live in Groton/New London CT while attending a Submarine tech school for the Navy. My daughter was even born there. Trust me when I say the place is a ****hole and these people would be better off moving.

Take the money and run people. :movefast:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...also, the thread title needs an "s" in it - I was tempted to respond with "all your base are belong to us."

It needs an "s" and an apostrophe. :)

(And I think the quote is "All your base are belonging us". (Although I'll freely admit: I've seen that line about 1,000 times 'round the 'net, but I haven't the foggiest where it comes from.))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See here's the thing. It might be legal, but so are lot's of things that politicians choose not to do. How do the jokers that propose these projects get re-elected? And if they do, then don't the folks they represent deserve what they get? This issue must of come out in the elections.

That's basicly what the Supreme Court said.

(Contrary to popular "activist judges" myth, the SC didn't create this new thing when they affirmed this action. The primary reason why the court let it stand was because it's been happening for over 100 years, and it was challenged 100 years ago, and upheald. For example, that's how a lot of cities got railroads built: Force the sale of the property, then give the land to the railroad.)

I suspect it's where the term "railroaded" came from.

What the SC ruled was that there's nothing inherently evil about domain proceedings being used to gather land for a private entitity (for a public good), and the SC ruled that the city council was better qualified to determine what "the public good" was than Washington.

Basicly, they said "If you think they're abusing their power, then vote 'em out."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to live in Groton/New London CT while attending a Submarine tech school for the Navy. My daughter was even born there. Trust me when I say the place is a ****hole and these people would be better off moving.

Take the money and run people. :movefast:

Your right it isnt a nice town but you still have family owned land that is waterfront. And believe it or not in the last 2 years new london has cleaned up quite a bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand being paid "fair market value" and all that, but to some, say their house was built by the great-grandfather, stayed in the family...all that stuff....money will never be able to replace what that piece of property staying in their family means to them.....

Giving up my house for condos and waterfront shopping for "the greater good"?? Sorry...find someone else to take from.

I agree with you. the value to some is not money.

Most people in CT are in disbelief saying if this is legal whos next

Link to comment
Share on other sites

freaking Russia with a new baseball stadium for the Washington Nationals.

...In Russia they take your house and send you to Siberia. In Connecticut, they take your house and pay you $500,000. I don't think it's quite the same thing.

...also, the thread title needs an "s" in it - I was tempted to respond with "all your base are belong to us."

500,000 compared to the hundreds of millions the city is going to get in taxes over the next 30+ years?

It's not the samething but you are still getting ****ed up the butt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Our Base Are Belong To Us

All Our Base Are Belong To Us

All Our Base Are Belong To Us

All Our Base Are Belong To Us

Never liked eminent domain, but it is the law. Don't complain about the law, change it or vote the people out of p[ower (ie zoning board) or whoever made the decisions to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the SC ruled was that there's nothing inherently evil about domain proceedings being used to gather land for a private entitity (for a public good), and the SC ruled that the city council was better qualified to determine what "the public good" was than Washington.

Basicly, they said "If you think they're abusing their power, then vote 'em out."

If anything positive comes of this trend maybe it will be that more than 20-30% start turning out for elections. And for that matter, is the public good defined as the good only of the people that voted? It just doesn't sit well with me even if it is legal. I would be curious to hear if it was an issue in local elections up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad thing is its happening everywhere.
and has happened for to long, as much as some seizure is nescesary i think the govt greatly abuses this power of theirs, i can understand I66, barely, but i can. but now that the supreme court has given even more rights to the govt so that the FEDERAL govt can sieze any property for no reason, absolutely unconstitutional imo. if congress was worth anything they would enact legislation, but they're spinless and corupt to the bone.

the govt has a past record for missuse of this power; shenendoa natl park, no just compensation. soe land for I66 did not get just compesation. state govts across the country have begun acting on the supreme courts 2005 ruling on property siezure.

stand for your rights Americans! this is one instance where public dissent i think is aceptable, ths man has every right to defend his property, he should get a shotgun and camp out behind his front door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...