July 29th, 2006
For an interesting and tough look at not only eminent domain abuse, but also the financing mechanisms that accompany it, see a creative and independent documentary, titled “Begging For Billionaires.”
This documentary should serve as an inspiration of all of those enduring property rights abuses in their communities. Grab your camera and start gathering evidence!
July 26th, 2006
From the Castle Coalition:
Ohio Supreme Court Rules Unanimously To Protect Property From Eminent Domain AbuseLegislation Still Needed To Stop Rampant Abuse of Eminent Domain in Ohio
Arlington, Va. - Today, in an historic ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously
held that the City of Norwood could not use eminent domain to take Carl and Joy
Gamble’s home of 35 years, as well as the rental home of Joe Horney and tutoring
center owned by Matthew Burton and Sanae Ichikawa Burton, for private
development-specifically, a complex of chain stores, condominiums and office space
planned by millionaire developer Jeffrey Anderson and his Rookwood Partners.
In a unanimous and lengthy decision, the Court laid out a series of important legal
opinions. The Ohio Supreme Court explicitly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s
infamous Kelo decision of June 2005, in which that Court held that local governments
can take property from one person and transfer it to another because the new owner
might produce more taxes or more jobs than the current one-so-called “economic
development.” Second, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that state courts must apply
“heightened scrutiny” to uses of eminent domain, especially when the property is
being taken for use by another private party; according to the Court, lower Ohio
courts should not simply rubber-stamp decisions by local government to take
property. Next, the Court held that statutes authorizing the taking of property
cannot be vague. The “deteriorating” standard used by Norwood “is a standardless
standard,” and the Court rejected it. Finally, the Court struck down Ohio’s statute
that allowed property to be taken even before an appeals court ruled that the taking
was legal.
“This decision is a complete and total victory for Carl and Joy Gamble, Joe Horney,
the Burtons and every home and business owner in the State of Ohio,” said Institute
for Justice Senior Attorney Dana Berliner, who argued the case before the Ohio
Supreme Court. “The Court stopped the abuse of eminent domain by Norwood and told
Ohio courts that it is their job to enforce the Constitution and make sure that
eminent domain really is for public use. Ohio has a terrible history of its cities
abusing eminent domain for private development, and that abuse would have increased
exponentially if the Court had ruled in favor of Norwood.”
“This decision will set an example for the entire country,” explained Scott Bullock,
an IJ senior attorney. “Other states will look to Ohio’s well-reasoned opinion in
setting their own constitutional standards. The decision also will affect future
legislation in Ohio. The Court has just told the Legislature that it cannot use the
kinds of vague and standardless definitions that are so common under current Ohio
law. Today’s decision starts the reform of Ohio’s terrible eminent domain laws, but
it is up to the Legislature to complete the task.”
“Our home is ours again!” exclaimed Joy Gamble. “The Ohio Supreme Court has stopped
this piracy. Now all Ohioans are safe from the scourge of eminent domain for
private profit.”
“The Ohio Supreme Court finally made us Americans again,” Carl Gamble added. “We
haven’t had the heart or the will to see our home of more than 35 years since the
City and the developer forced us out and fenced it off, but I’m sure we’ll be taking
a ride back up there today. This is just terrific!”
Joy continued, "Our state Supreme Court did what the U.S. Supreme Court did not do;
it protected our home. The Ohio Supreme Court protected small property owners from
the overpowering and overbearing city governments and the greedy developers.”
Joy added, “We stuck this fight out, but this victory would not have been possible
without the Institute for Justice. We can’t thank them enough for winning us back
our home and our rights.”
For the time being, Carl and Joy will remain in their newly rented apartment in
Kentucky, on which they have a lease for the next six months. Joy concluded, “We’re
just going to let this decision settle in. But finally, our nightmare is over.”
“The Gambles deserved to win today and to get back what’s rightfully theirs-their
home,” said Bert Gall, staff attorney at the Institute for Justice. “They’ve won
this battle not just for themselves, but for every single person who owns a home or
business in Ohio. They and all our clients are true American heroes.”
“Almost one year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s universally despised Kelo decision,
the battle between ordinary Americans and the abusers of eminent domain-tax-hungry
officials and land-hungry developers-continues,” said Chip Mellor, president and
general counsel of the Institute. “Today’s decision by the Court marks an historic
victory for home and business owners across the country. But this fight has to
continue. The Institute for Justice and our Castle Coalition are dedicated to
making sure that owners throughout the country are protected from eminent abuse.”
The Kelo case has touched off a revolution not only in state supreme courts, like
Ohio’s, but in state legislatures throughout the country. Thus far, 30 state
legislatures have passed laws giving greater protections for home and small business
owners.
Christina Walsh
Assistant Castle Coalition Coordinator
Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 682-9320
www.ij.org
www.castlecoalition.org
July 21st, 2006
We Saved Wissler Ranch!
July 21, 2006 Save Wissler Ranch Update
Good Prevails - Community Support Proves Effective
Thank you concerned citizens of Lewis-Palmer D38. The BoE announced at last night’s Board Meeting that a NEW site for the 2nd high school is under “contract”. They are not going to pursue Marie Wissler’s property via eminent domain. This is a true victory for the power of a community banned together!
The new site is located at the current Hunter Run Farm and adjoining property. We applaud the efforts of the School Board in hearing the community’s outrage over the possible use of eminent domain. We have proven that we are a community of morals, ethics and perseverance, and that by working together we can overcome huge obstacles.
Thank you citizens - Thank you D38 School Board!
What’s Next?
Save Wissler Ranch Community Group looks forward to helping the School Board pass the bond issue in November. We trust the Board will provide the details in the bond so there are no unanswered questions. Clearly identifying items such as exact high school location, size and bond usage will help ensure that the bond passes.
If you are interested in joining our task force to work with the School Board in passing the bond issue, please contact Dorothy Kagarise at 719-559-0481.
Marie Wissler and the Wissler family thank the community for the incredible support and efforts in saving Wissler Ranch.
Save Wissler Ranch
email info@savewisslerranch.com
July 20th, 2006
Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition gets strong support from Representatives
KIM, Colo. July 20, 2006 - On Saturday July 15th, the Pinon Canyon Expansion
Opposition Coalition (PCEOC) held a “Support Rural Colorado Event” in Kim, Colo. to
draw support from local, state and national representatives in stopping the proposed
Pinon Canyon Expansion. The event garnered over 500 attendees to listen and voice
concerns to elected Representatives.
“We were very pleased with the turnout for this event,” said Lon Robertson,
President of PCEOC. “More of our legislators now have a face to put with the issue,
and it’s the face of patriotic and concerned Americans,” he added.
To illustrate that the proposed expansion will not only affect family ranchers and
farmers, but whole communities, the event was held in conjunction with the 5th
Bi-Annual Kim Volunteer Fire Department Fundraiser. This fundraiser helps fund
volunteer fire fighters and EMTs and the purchase of fire-fighting and ambulance
equipment and its maintenance which is crucial to small communities that can’t
afford to staff a full- time fire department.
Guest speakers included Congressman and gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez and
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave. Both representatives voiced their disapproval in the
Department of Army’s stance on possibly using condemnation through eminent domain to
acquire the estimated 418,000 acres wanted to expand the current military base of
236,000 acres.
Congressman Beauprez and Congresswoman Musgrave received standing ovations for
comments like:
“Freedom in America starts with the right to own possessions, the cornerstone of
this freedom is the right to own land,” stated Congressman Bob Beauprez.
“The Government owns too much land already,” stated Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave.
Congressman Bob Beauprez held a meeting later that afternoon with PCEOC, cattlemen’s
groups and their representatives, and local ranchers to discuss the expansion
proposal and private property rights in further detail.
In all, eleven speakers and numerous elected officials attended the event to help
protect private property rights and agriculture in the state of Colorado.
Other Speakers and Memorable Quotes:
Ø Sean Conway - representing Senator Wayne Allard - “Senator Allard is
committed to making sure the citizens of southeastern Colorado have voice in any
possible future expansion of Pinon Canyon,” Mr. Conway said. “(Senator Allard) has
successfully included in the this year’s Defense Authorization Bill an amendment
which prohibits any expansion of Pinon Canyon until the Army provides the
information requested by the citizens of southeastern Colorado,” he added.
Ø John Rodriguez - representing Senator Ken Salazar
Ø Aaron Greco - representing Congressman John Salazar - “We will stand united
against any effort to take land from property owners who are unwilling to sell their
land to the federal government.”
Ø State Representative Wes McKinley - “(The) purpose of government is to
protect property rights. Expansion of Pinon Canyon falls far outside of the
government’s purpose.”
Ø State Senator Ken Kester - “The economics of Southeast Colorado cannot
sustain a hit like this.”
Ø State Representative Mike Cerbo - “Be strategic, innovative and stand your
ground.”
Ø State Representative Angie Paccione -
Ø Mark Gallegos - Honored Army Reservist - Recently returned from a tour of
duty in Iraq where he acted as Military Police instructor and trainer. He is also a
candidate for Las Animas County Sheriff.
Other legislators, candidates or their representatives in attendance included:
Ø Richard Skorman, Regional Director for Senator Ken Salazar
Ø Kevin Karney, Otero County Commissioner
Ø Jake Klein, Otero County Commissioner
Ø Jim Montoya, Las Animas County Commissioner
Ø Ken Torres, Las Animas County Commissioner
Ø John Albright, candidate for Colorado House of Representatives, Dist 64
Ø Wayne Snider, Executive Director La Junta Economic Development Alliance
Ø Jane Andread, Public Relations/La Junta Economic Development Alliance
Ø A Letter from Prowers County Commissioners - voicing their disapproval of
expansion and support of the Coalition
Ø Jeanne Fenter, Southeast Colorado Tourism
For more information on the Pinon Canyon Expansion Proposal, or the Pinon Canyon
Opposition Coalition please visit www.pinoncanyon.com.
-PCEOC-
July 13th, 2006
PCEOC members,
Looks like we’re still ‘on target’ with our plans and tasks for the July 15th
‘Support Rural Colorado Event’ in Kim. Here’s the update:
1. As of latest notice yesterday evening, the people and groups committed to being
at the event are:
a.. Congressman Bob Beauprez
b.. Representative Angie Paccione
c.. Colorado Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff
d.. Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave
e.. Representative Mike Cerbo
f.. Representative Wes McKinnley
g.. Staff representing Senator Ken Salazar
h.. Staff representing Congressman John Salazar
i.. Otero County Commissioners
j.. Las Animas County Commissioners
k.. Baca County Commissioners
l.. LaJunta Economic Development Alliance
m.. Las Animas County Economic Development
n.. and others!
2. There is a display area being set up in the Activity Center showing the personal
issues and potential losses that would occur if PCMS is allowed to expand.
And …… If you are able to assist please let us know when you are available and
how you would like to help. We are still compiling a list, at least to this point,
of people to help handout information, assist with setting up, clean up on Saturday
night and Sunday morning, etc. etc.
It’s supposed to be hot so bring your umbrellas and sun screen! So you’ll be
protected while walking around and in case we may not be able to get everyone under
the tent!
The Kim FFA will be selling water and snacks during the afternoon. And don’t forget
the BBQ, auction and dance after 6 pm!!
See you Saturday!
July 13th, 2006
Boulder County Planning Commission Meeting
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
1:30 PM - Third Floor Hearing Room - Boulder County Courthouse
1325 Pearl Street, Boulder
Please attend this meeting if you can. Even if you don’t have
agricultural property, it is still important to support reasonable regulations
- no matter who they are applied to or where they are in the county.
The LUC appreciates all your support in the past and your continuing
support. Vigilance is still needed to protect private property in the
county from any type of over-regulation.
The Boulder County Planning Commission will be considering amendments
to the Boulder County Land Use Code pertaining to agricultural issues at
their regular meeting on July 19 at 1:30 PM. This is docket
DC-05-002b. The Planning Commission will be taking public testimony on this
docket at this meeting and will make a recommendation to the Boulder County
Board of County Commissioners on this docket.
Attached, please find three documents which will be the basis for the
discussion and action at the July 19th meeting. The first is the staff
recommendation on this docket. The second document is the redline of
the proposed text amendments with comments. Finally, the third document
is a chart comparing the current uses associated with the sale of
agricultural or horticultural products under the Land Use Code.
If you have questions about these materials or the meeting, please feel
free to contact Michelle Krezek at mkrezek@co.boulder.co.us or
720.564.2623.
Betty Gibbs, Secretary
Land Use Coalition
www.landusecoalition.org
July 13th, 2006
by Wayne Laugesen
Thanks to two honest Boulder County commissioners with integrity and guts, we had a hell of a party July 8—the day the county’s decision to return stolen property became law.
About 60 landowners and property rights defenders gathered at a mountain home to eat, drink and toast victory. Several of us lifted a glass to County Commissioners Will Toor and Ben Pearlman. We toasted the Land Use Coalition and all others involved in the process of getting more than $50 million in stolen land returned to its owners.
The unmerge party was like nothing any of us had seen. It was a celebration of people having their core investments returned. It was a celebration of politicians deciding to undo the crimes of their corrupt predecessors. It was a celebration in which extreme liberal Democrats, radical right-wing Republicans and everyone in between found themselves on common ground, opposing governmental theft and valuing property rights. It was a celebration of something almost unprecedented in American politics: the undoing of a law. Not only was it the elimination of a law, it was the elimination of one that benefited government at the expense of individuals. It was the ousting of a law that had given local government more power and control—the kind of law that’s almost never brought down.
If you see Commissioners Toor and Pearlman, thank them for making county government respectable again. If you see Commissioner Tom Mayer—who voted against returning the stolen properties—turn away. If you see County Open Space Director Ron Stewart—the former county commissioner who concocted the thievery—demand that he tell you why he did such a thing. Ask him if it’s his job to acquire property through lawful and ethical channels, or to take it by any means possible. Demand answers.
Stewart devised the county’s land heist in 1993. He was aided by then County Commissioners Sandy Hume and Homer “Bingo” Page—the man facing criminal charges for an alleged bingo scam. Basically, commissioners administratively merged all contiguous properties in the mountains that had one owner. If you went to bed one night owning your home and the lot next door, you woke up the next morning owning only one lot. If it was your plan to sell the lot next door to fund retirement, or to send a child to college, you could forget it. You were in the same fix as Enron employees, who lost their investments to the greedy and callous actions of selfish men.
Commissioners were so secretive about the heist that most victims didn’t even know they had lost their investments until they tried to sell or develop property. Pam McElwain and her husband owned a one-acre lot and the vacant lot next door. After their small business failed and the bank foreclosed on their home, they decided to sell the vacant lot to Andrew Stephens—a man who also neighbored the vacant lot and was anxious to buy it.
In attempting the sale, however, McElwain and her husband learned that the lot had been merged and was no longer a separate unit. Stephens, the once-motivated buyer, suddenly became a grand supporter of the merger heist. He prepared a 30-minute Power Point presentation that argued the small vacant lot was a pristine wildlife turf that needed to be preserved by the county.
“Once Mr. Stephens learned about the merger, he realized he could enjoy the property as open space without having to spend any money,” McElwain said. “It was obvious that the county land use staff coached him on how to defend the mergers. That property was all we had, and it had simply been taken away. Our prospective buyer would get everything he wanted, at no cost, and we would simply be out the money we paid for it.”
Widow Frances MacAnally owned contiguous properties along Flagstaff Road and wasn’t notified of the merger. Commissioners left her with only one property, but didn’t bother to tell her that. She dutifully paid taxes on two properties for most of 10 years. When she learned that the properties had been merged, county officials agreed to refund only two years worth of overpaid taxes. And because of the mergers, the property she planned to sell to fund retirement had the value of a mirage.
Habitat for Humanity—which provides homes to the poor—had promised homes to three families on three properties it owned in Boulder County. After losing a lot to the merger, the families drew straws and one family’s dreams were crushed. Stewart and company were unfazed. Vacant lots, after all, were always more important to the old commissioners than the needs of living, breathing human beings.
How many college educations weren’t funded because Stewart and company stole land? How many retirees sat home, unable to afford the trips they’d dreamed of taking?
Mercifully, the mighty oppressors have fallen. Stewart and former County Commissioner Paul Danish—a latecomer to the land heist who helped perpetuate it—were ejected by state-imposed term limits that county voters elected to keep. Commissioner Mayer will almost certainly be expelled by voters in November, and hopefully replaced by someone as decent and honest as Pearlman or Toor. At the July 8 unmerge party, party lines didn’t matter as everyone agreed: Sometimes the process just plain works.
Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com
July 6th, 2006
John Tomke: Liberal Republican Land Grabber
*** WARNING ***
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne is considering nominating Liberal Republican
John Tomke to a top level position in the Interior Department.
Tomke has a proven record of attacking private property rights with extreme
wetlands regulations. NOW Tomke wants to get his hands on the Endangered Species
Act!!!
If nominated and confirmed, Tomke would be the Assistant Secretary for Fish
Wildlife and Parks. This is the NUMBER ONE deputy position to Kempthorne on
matters relating to the Endangered Species Act.
### IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED ###
See below. PLEASE contact the people listed below and state your OPPOSITION to an
anti-property rights Liberal Republican taking over a key position with oversight
of the Endangered Species Act.
THIS IS THE SITUATION:
Craig Manson is the outgoing Assistant Secretary overseeing the ESA. After four
excellent years promoting private property rights, he retired from office in
December of 2005. Manson was a good guy and did a great job. He met with property
rights groups and fought for our concerns. He was also an advocate of multiple-use
of federal lands for both recreation and energy exploration purposes.
Manson worked with everyone to bring some common sense to the ESA. For example,
under the Clinton Administration and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, an
incredible 88% of species proposed for listing were listed as endangered. Under
President Bush and Gale Norton, with guidance from Craig Manson, fewer were
proposed for listing, and only about 52% of species proposed were actually listed.
This is still a high number, but in many cases listings were forced by lawsuits
from environmental groups.
And extremist groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, which publicized
this percentage reduction, whined constantly about the reduced number, and
demanded more, more, and more listings.
NOW, Interior Secretary Kempthorne is considering naming Liberal Republican John
Tomke to replace Manson in this critical position.
Tomke is Chairman of an outfit called Ducks Unlimited (DU). They claim to be good
old boys who want to shoot ducks. And that is partially true. But here is the rest
of the story. Under Tomke?s leadership, Ducks Unlimited has taken extreme
positions on wetlands regulation, and attacked private property rights.
For example, here is DU?s description of what wetlands are, from their website:
“Wetlands are among the most productive systems on the planet. They are invaluable
not only to waterfowl and scores of other wildlife species, but to the very
quality of life on Earth.”
Here is the reality. Tomke and DU have bitterly opposed and spent lots of money
since 2001 fighting a pro-property rights Supreme Court decision, called the
“SWANCC case.” They also opposed subsequent regulations to implement SWANCC to
protect property rights.
DU is claiming all it wants to do is protect wetlands. But the “wetland” at issue
in the SWANCC case is hardly a precious pristine wetland in a wilderness
somewhere. It is a rock quarry just outside Chicago, Illinois! And it would not
even exist unless human activity dug up the rocks!! DU wants to throw a book of
regulations on the owner of the quarry because DU claims it is a wetland!
JOHN TOMKE - - - ENEMY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
John Tomke will ROLL BACK the progress that Judge Craig Manson, former Interior
Secretary Gale Norton, House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, and other
allies of ours have made in the past five years.
With Tomke, you can expect the number of claims of endangered species to increase,
the number of listings to increase, in line with the extreme demands of leftwing
environmental activists.
ACTION ITEMS:
ONE. Let?s propose our own nominees!!! There are a lot of good people out there!!
Propose someone you know, or yourself, and send us information about the person
you suggest.
TWO. If you know of abuses directed towards property owners or examples of
anti-property rights statements or activities committed by Ducks Unlimited or John
Tomke, please send them to us.
THREE. LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU THINK. Contact ALL the people below and tell them
you SUPPORT private property rights, and OPPOSE Liberal Republican John Tomke?s
nomination to oversee the Endangered Species Act!!! It might not seem like it
will make a difference to e-mail President Bush and the others listed below. BUT
IT DOES. These messages are READ and considered by aides to Bush, Cheney,
Kempthorne, etc. and sometimes make it all the way to the top, individually or as
a group statement.
MAKE A STATEMENT!
Tell them to nominate someone as Assistant Secretary who will carry on the great
work done by Craig Manson in support of private property and fixing the Endangered
Species Act.
NOT John Tomke ? Tomke will roll back the progress made in stopping ridiculous
listings of species that are not actually endangered. He will move ahead with his
leftwing environmentalist agenda of Federal government regulatory control over
private land. Tomke will take his proven extremism in wetlands regulation, and now
use the ESA as a tool to attack and control private property and access to public
lands.
CONTACT:
*****Action Items:
——-1. Call or e-mail Brian Waidmann, who is Secretary Kempthorne?s Chief of
Staff: Direct phone line: 202-208-5043. E-mail: brian_waidmann@ios.doi.gov
——-2. Call or e-mail Douglas Domenech,. He is Secretary Kempthorne?s White House
Liaison (202) 208-5647. E-mail: doug_domenech@ios.doi.gov
——-3. Call Gary Smith. He is Secretary Kempthorne?s External and
Intergovernmental Affairs Director at (202) 208-1923. E-mail:
gary_smith@ios.doi.gov
——-4. Call, fax and e-mail the White House at (202) 456-1111, Fax: (202) 456-2461
or e-mail: comments@whitehouse.gov
——-5. Call, fax and e-mail Vice President Richard Cheney? office at (202)
456-1111, Fax: (202) 456-2461 or e-mail: vice_president@whitehouse.gov
——-6. Call both your Senators to urge them to oppose John Tomke?s nomination.
Any Senator may be called at (202) 224-3121. This is especially important if your
Senator is on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Here are the Members:
Republicans:
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
James Talent (R-MO)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
George Allen (R-VA)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Democrats:
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
July 2nd, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (from the Institute for Justice’s Castle Coalition):
June 30, 2006
Susette Kelo Lost Her Rights,
She Lost Her Property,
But She Has Saved Her Home
Famous House That Was the Subject
Of U.S. Supreme Court Eminent Domain Abuse Case
Will Be Moved Probably Close to its Original Location
Arlington, Va.-Susette Kelo’s little pink cottage-the home that was the subject of a
landmark U.S. Supreme Court case and a national symbol of the fight against eminent
domain abuse-will be spared from the wrecking ball.
In a compromise put forward by
Kelo and accepted today by the City of New London, the home will be saved and moved
to another location, perhaps close to where it originally stood over a century ago,
on Pequot Avenue in New London. The U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London gutted
federal constitutional protections against eminent domain abuse but, in so doing,
sparked a national rebellion against these practices.
"It is wonderful that Susette Kelo's little pink house, which is a national
symbol of the fight against eminent domain abuse, will remain standing,”
said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, which
continues to represent the remaining two homeowners. “The home will
continue to serve as a tribute to her brave struggle and as a powerful
symbol of the fight to stop land-grabs by cities and their developer
allies.”
“I am not happy about giving up my property, but I am very glad that my home, which
means so much to me, will not be demolished and I will remain living in it,” said
Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in Kelo v. New London. “I proposed this as a
compromise years ago and was turned down flat.”
Faced with eviction and the destruction of her beloved home, Kelo put forward an
idea that she had originally proposed when first threatened with eminent domain
abuse: preserving the home and moving it. When she first proposed this idea, it
was rejected by the New London Development Corporation (NLDC). Now, the City, NLDC
and the State of Connecticut have agreed to the move. While the precise location
has not yet been determined, the house may be moved on or near Pequot Avenue, which
is where the home originally stood before it was moved to Fort Trumbull over 100
years ago. There, the home, like Kelo’s property in Fort Trumbull, will be very
close to the Long Island Sound.
The City and the remaining homeowners had been at an impasse. The City gave them a
May 31, 2006, deadline for accepting a settlement or face eviction. Two of the
homeowners, Susette Kelo and the Cristofaro family, refused. Conn. Gov. M. Jodi
Rell proposed moving the homes and giving real titles back the homeowners in Fort
Trumbull, but the City refused to agree to that approach.
“I will be able to continue to live in the home that means so much to me, with a
real title to my property,” said Kelo. “Also, I will once again live in a
neighborhood rather than a demolition zone.”
While Kelo’s agreement today signifies her deep attachment to her home, the
agreement reached with the other remaining homeowner, the Cristofaros, reflects the
family’s deep affiliation with the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, where they have lived
for over 30 years. Although the Cristofaros will lose their current home, under the
agreement, the City and the NLDC have agreed to support an application for more
housing in Fort Trumbull, and the Cristofaro family has an exclusive right to
purchase one of the homes at a fixed price. Moreover, a plaque will be installed in
the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to commemorate the loss of family matriarch
Margherita Cristofaro, who passed away while the battle against eminent domain abuse
occurred in New London.
“Neither the Kelo nor the Cristofaro family wanted to lose their homes, but they are
each keeping some part of their homes,” added Institute for Justice Senior Attorney
Dana Berliner. “Susette Kelo will keep her house, albeit in another location. The
Cristofaros want to stay on the Fort Trumbull peninsula. This agreement gives them
the right to own a home in Fort Trumbull when one is built. The City also has
agreed to move the trees that father Pasquale Cristofaro transplanted 30 years ago,
when the previous Cristofaro home was taken by eminent domain.”
“The New London case was history-making,” said Chip Mellor, president and general
counsel of the Institute for Justice. “It is only fitting that the house that
launched a grassroots revolt should be preserved.”
The Kelo decision touched off a firestorm of controversy and a grassroots backlash,
leading to numerous legislative changes and citizen initiatives. Since the June 23,
2005, decision, legislators in 47 states have introduced, considered or passed
legislation limiting the government’s eminent domain powers in instances of private
use. Twenty-five governors have signed legislation into law. Arizona, Iowa and New
Mexico are the only states whose governors vetoed eminent domain reform. So far,
six states have constitutional amendments to limit eminent domain power on the
ballot in November 2006.
While no firm details are yet set, Kelo’s home is expected to be moved sometime in
the next year.
July 2nd, 2006
From Jennifer Lang of Lakewood:
Energy Efficient Flaws in Boulder Historic Preservation Code
For any historical homeowner in the city of Boulder, Congratulations – you are now the proud co-owner with the Landmark Preservation Board!
Historic Boulder is gaining more property as time marches on and thus there is a growing struggle to outfit homes with the modern trappings of a sealed exterior. There arises a conflict for a community that prides itself on its environmental passion whilst being the bull’s-eye for Colorado tourism. Historic preservation and energy efficiency are dueling factors for this community and this item is on the agenda for the Boulder City Council meeting July 11. Underlying this issue is the green agenda of reducing construction waste in landfills. Is the zero waste effort trickling down into the realm of home improvement? The Constitution may be an evolving document in Boulder, but your house structure sure won’t be.
Navigating the labyrinth of Boulder’s municipal code and getting approved by the Boulder Landmark Preservation Board in an effort to change the screen door, exterior light fixture, or window pane is a cumbersome process. This could explain why a Mapleton Hill resident with an unapproved garage door replacement was met with incarceration. This recent case is the unintended consequence of a historic preservation ordinance penalizing non-compliance and is a deterrent to home improvement.
Without an exception to the historical ordinance for energy efficient upgrades, the next winter season will be over, and precious money and non-renewable energy will be wasted in the name of history. The Landmark Preservation Board should exempt itself from utility functions and environmental upkeep. The process should be a reasonable and timely for private homeowners to make changes to their privately mortgaged homes. Boulder prides itself on its uniqueness and avoids the cookie cutter house syndrome, but regulating homeowners in a preservation frenzy is unelected power run amok.
The Independence Institute's Property Rights Project was established in 2005 to serve as a community resource on land use issues—including but not limited to—eminent domain abuse, zoning regulations, and historical designations. (Read More)
Stay up to date with the latest from the Property Rights Project by subscribing to our RSS feed.
Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
