[IP] A New (London) Low
Begin forwarded message:
From: EEkid@xxxxxxx
Date: August 13, 2005 4:08:27 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: A New (London) Low
A New (London) Low
A refrigerator box under the bridge: The Kelo Seven prepares for the
worst
by Jonathan O'Connell - July 14, 2005
Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take
the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two
of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. The U.S. Supreme
Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private
property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain,
and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were
living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back
rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge
back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.
In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on
the market rate as it was in 2000 .
The hard rains started falling that year, when Matt Dery and his
neighbors in Fort Trumbull learned that the city planned to replace
their homes with a hotel, a conference center, offices and upscale
housing that would complement the adjoining Pfizer Inc. research
facility.
The city, citing eminent domain, condemned their homes, told them to
move and began leveling surrounding houses. Dery and six of his
neighbors fought the takeover, but five years later, on June 23, the
downpour of misfortune continued as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4
that the city could claim the property for economic development.
Dery owns four buildings on the project site, including his home and
the birthplace and lifelong home of his 87-year-old mother,
Wilhelmina. Dery plans to make every remaining effort to keep his
land, but with few legal options remaining, he's planning for the worst.
And for good reason. It's reasonable to think that people who
purchased property years ago (in some cases, decades ago) would be in
a position to cash in, especially since they're being forced from
their homes. But that's not the case.
The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired
by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market
rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in
comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the
relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.
"I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000
assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales
manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's
a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell
low."
And there are more storms on the horizon. In June 2004, NLDC sent the
seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the
completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive
"use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents.
In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in
2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five
years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at
the close of the trial. Any money made from tenantssome residents'
only form of incomewould also have to be paid to the city.
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.
A lawyer for the residents, Scott Bullock, responded to the letter on
July 8, 2004, asserting that the NLDC had agreed to forgo rents as
part of a pretrial agreement in which the residents in turn agreed to
a hastened trial schedule. Bullock called the NLDC's effort at
obtaining back rent "a new low."
"It seems like it is simply a desperate attempt by a nearly broke
organization to try to come up with more funds to perpetuate its own
existence," Bullock wrote. He vowed to respond to any lawsuit with
another.
With the case nearly closed, the NLDC may soon make good on its
promise to sue. Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who teaches
property law, says it's not clear who might prevail in a legal battle
over rent. "From a political standpoint, the city might be better off
trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," he says.
An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the
takeover, a debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case
namesake Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house with her
husband, learned she would owe in the ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd
leave here broke," says Kelo. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to
get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live
under the bridge."
That's one way to get out of the rain.
http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/