quote:

---

Originally posted by zoobie555
And of course the mainstream media only covered it for about 4 hours.

---

quote:

---

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said, the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

---

quote:

---

But few options seem available



‘We've pretty much lost our right to have private property. Everybody that owns homes, their homes are at risk for eminent domain. ... So it's scary. I just feel bad for my kids when they get to be my age and own their own home. They don't own it. Either the bank owns it or a private corporation's going to own it.'
Richard Beyer, a plaintiff who owns two homes at 41 and 49 Goshen St.

By KENTON ROBINSON
Day Staff Columnist, Enterprise Reporter/Columnist
Published on 6/24/2005

New London — Drive by Michael Cristofaro's home at 50 Denison Ave. tomorrow; he promises you'll see this sign: FOR SALE.

“I'm out of here. I'm selling my home,” Cristofaro, a New London resident for 43 years, said Thursday. “I'm a white-collar worker, a computer engineer. Who do they want living in this town?”

The Cristofaro family owns a second home, at 53 Goshen St., in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the city's right to take that home, and the homes of six other property owners, by eminent domain.

The decision came as no surprise to those fighting to save their homes.

“I sort of figured it would go that way,” said Byron Athenian, who lives at what used to be 78 Smith St. before the street in front of his house was demolished. “That's the way the government works.”

But there was anger nonetheless.

“Those justices made the wrong decision,” Cristofaro said. “Four of them protected our property rights; five threw them out the door. I hope their property is chosen next for eminent domain so they know what it's like to be thrown out into the street.”

And even though, after six years of fighting the city, the group seemed to have run low on options, several promised that they would never leave.

“I'm not going anywhere. I'm here,” said William von Winkle, who owns three buildings on what remains of Smith Street. “I'm going to fight until they give up. They can do their little development around here with us here or they can do no development and try to take it, because until they stop trying to take my property by eminent domain, they will not build anything at Fort Trumbull. It's simple as that.”

“I don't know how they're going to get us out,” Cristofaro agreed. “We're going to keep our homes to the bitter end, because what they've done is wrong.”

And they warned every citizen of New London and the nation at large that the court's ruling stripped them of their right to own private property.

“One of the most fundamental rights that the country was built upon has been pretty much obliterated,” said Scott Sawyer, a lawyer who represented the homeowners. “Owning property doesn't seem to amount to much in the United States anymore. Certainly, none of us own our property anymore.”

Richard Beyer, a plaintiff who owns two homes at 41 and 49 Goshen St., agreed.

“We've pretty much lost our right to have private property,” he said. “Everybody that owns homes, their homes are at risk for eminent domain.”

And that, said Beyer, Cristofaro and von Winkle, now translates into giving the land of small property owners to big corporations.

“As one gentleman that I just got off the phone with said, ‘Welcome to Russia,' ” Beyer said. “So it's scary. I just feel bad for my kids when they get to be my age and own their own home. They don't own it. Either the bank owns it or a private corporation's going to own it.”

The homeowners predicted that more land in the city would end up in the hands of private corporations.

“I guarantee you that just about every house from Howard Street to Shaw's Cove is going to be targeted,” Beyer said. “I see that whole district in New London as being Pfizer's business park. It'll be like Avery Point minus the houses. You'll have access to Fort Trumbull State Park and that'll be it.”

Beyer, who with a partner had renovated one of his two houses and was working on the second when the city took them, said one bitter lesson he had learned was never again to do business in New London.

And he pointed out the city has never delivered on its promise that Pfizer's arrival in the city would mean lower taxes.

“The city of New London promised all the residents of New London that all your property taxes will be reduced,” he said. “That promise was never fulfilled. The taxes keep going up ... When is enough enough?”

And who, several asked, would want to build in the Fort Trumbull area now?

“They're taking the properties for an obsolete plan,” von Winkle said. “Today, who would build a hotel in New London, Connecticut? And they certainly wouldn't build an office building. We have half the city empty now. So what are they taking it for?”

For Cristofaro, the home at 53 Goshen St. is the second the city has taken from his family by eminent domain. The city took the first house, on Woodbridge Street near Shaw's Cove, in 1972.

It was a home, Cristofaro said, that his father had lovingly surrounded with fruit trees, grapevines, yews and rhododendrons.

Today it is a parking lot.

---

quote:

---

Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?
Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.

Retailers such as Target (Research), Home Depot (Research) and Bed, Bath & Beyond (Research) have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found.

Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation.

Local governments have increasingly expanded the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores. Critics of the process maintain that local governments are too quick to invoke eminent domain on behalf of big retailers because of the potential for tax revenue generation and job creation.

The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.

The ruling would seem to offer new opportunities to retailers. However, some industry watchers caution that with Thursday's decision thrusting the eminent domain issue into the national spotlight, companies using eminent domain risk a very public backlash.

Craig Johnson, president of retail consulting group Customer Growth Partners, said that retailers shouldn't interpret the high court's decision to be a green light to aggressively expand even into those neighborhoods where a big-box presence is unwelcome.

"Even with the Supreme Court's decision potentially in their favor, smart retailers would rather go into communities wearing a white hat rather than a black one," said Johnson.

The appropriate move for companies would be to selectively use eminent domain as a last resort, he said, not as a first course of action. "I think companies have learned a few lessons from Wal-Mart's public relations struggles," he said.
Where's the space crunch?

According to industry watchers, retailers face a different type of expansion problem on the East Coast versus the West Coast.

"On the West Coast, land availability takes a back seat to labor union issues and that's why Wal-Mart has consistently run into problems in California," Johnson said. "On the East Coast, because of population density it's very hard to get big open space and the zoning is more restrictive," Johnson said.

Industry consultant George Whalin said that's one reason that Target, the No. 2 retailer behind Wal-Mart, (Research) has resorted to using eminent domain to set up shop in a few East Coast markets.

Target and Wal-Mart could not immediately be reached for comment.

"Wal-Mart and Target have both been criticized for their eminent domain use," said Burt Flickinger, a consultant with the Strategic Resources Group.

Meanwhile, eminent domain opponents called the high court ruling a "big blow for small businesses."

"It's crazy to think about replacing existing successful small businesses with other businesses," said Adrian Moore, vice president of Los Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute, a non-profit organization opposed to eminent domain.

"There are many, many instances where we've found that the cities that agreed to eminent domain use not only destroyed local businesses but the tax revenue that the local government had hoped to generate did not come to pass," Moore said.

But at least one retail industry analyst sees things a little differently.

"Expanding for big box store is a challenge, especially in the Northeast. Therefore, retailers will have to devise a strategy for using eminent domain," said Candace Corlett, retail analyst with WSL Strategic nRetail.

"Local communities may oppose Wal-Mart and Target coming to their area but as consumers, they also want to shop at these stores and they complain when they don't have these stores nearby," she said. "The fact is that shoppers ultimately vote with their dollars and retailers are very well aware of that."

Click here to read about whether the government can force you to sell your house in the name of new development.

Where is Wal-Mart looking to expand overseas? Click here. Top of page

---