United Liberty
Private Property
Let’s Cultivate OUR Own Garden
Fri, 12/18/2009 - 11:25am | posted by Brett Bittner
If you follow eminent domain cases at all, you are likely to recognize the name Suzette Kelo. She sued the City of New London, Connecticut for their misuse of the power of eminent domain, as they condemned her property and the property of her neighbors to allow Pfizer to build a research facility. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court and resulted in a gross violation of property rights nationwide, as the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found that the positive impact of the facility in terms of jobs and tax revenues would benefit the community of New London qualified as “public use” as outlined by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Last month, four years after the decision, Pfizer pulled out of the project, leaving New London with an empty lot generating next to no tax revenue after displacing Ms. Kelo and her neighbors.
Pfizer abandons site of infamous property rights case
Mon, 11/09/2009 - 7:25pm | posted by Jason Pye
One of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court, at least in recent memory, was Kelo v. New London. This decison redefined the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, allowing local governments to use eminent domain to take private property for private use or economic development.
The City of New London used eminent domain to essentially steal the land of Susette Kelo and a few of her neighbors in the Fort Trumbull area of the city to build for Pfizer to build a new complex.
The site where the homes sat has been vacant for four years, with no signs of looming development. Today, news broke that Pfizer is abandoned the city, and will now consider selling or leasing the land.
If you want some background, you can watch Ms. Kelo tell her story:
Sanford Skeptical of Bailout
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 7:16pm | posted by Jason Pye
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is a voice of reason on the latest bailout:
I am worried for our country — not so much because of the tumult in the financial markets but because of the federal government’s response and its implications.
