STOP
PROPERTY RIGHT VIOLATIONS
KELO VS. NEW LONDON
Yes, the government can now seize your property and
give it to whoever they want to without regard to public use.
The petition says it all. We have got to put a stop to the violations of our Property
rights in America. Stop by and sign it to let Congress know that you want your rights
protected. Tell as many people as you can so we can put a stop to these violations against
our 5th Amendment rights.
Call for Constitutional Amendment to overturn the
decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kelo vs. New London and to protect American
Citizens from future eminent domain violations
SIGN IT
HERE
If you wish to pass this petition around your town please CLICK HERE for more
information.
Your comments are invited here..... Private Property
Petition Patrol Forum
This petition has been created to call for a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn the
decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kelo vs. New London on June .23, 2005 and
to protect American Citizens from future eminent domain violations. The Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution says in part, private properties shall not be taken
for public use, without just compensation. The decision of the Supreme Court allowed
the city of New London to take private property not for Public use, but for the private
use of the New London Development Corporation to generate tax revenue. An Amendment must
be created to limit the use of eminent domain by Federal and State government(s) and to
protect American Citizens from future violation.
We, The Undersigned, urge Congress to take direct action in creating an Amendment to
protect all American Citizens from future eminent Domain violations, Whether it be by
State or Federal agencies, and to overturn the Supreme Courts decision in the case of Kelo
v. New London.
SIGN IT
HERE
[Case reference for petition]
Your comments are invited here..... Private Property
Petition Patrol Forum |
Kelo v. New London:
The city of New London, Connecticut had by the early 2000s fallen on hard economic times.
The city's tax base and population were continually decreasing, and city leaders were
growing desperate for some form of economic development. In 1998, the pharmaceutical
company Pfizer began construction of a major research facility on the outskirts of the
Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Seeing an opportunity, the city of New London
created the New London Development Corporation, a private entity under the control of the
city government, to consider plans to redevelop the Fort Trumbull neighborhood and
encourage new economic activities that might be brought in by the Pfizer plant. The city
was unaware at the time of future drug related court matters, like the Yaz lawsuit, that
could cripple a drug developers capital.
The development corporation created a development plan that included a resort hotel and
conference center, a new state park, 80-100 new residences, and various research, office,
and retail space. The plan divided the area into six parcels, but did not specify the
exact plans for development in any but the first parcel (the resort hotel and conference
center). The city in 2000 approved the development plan and authorized the corporation to
acquire land in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood.
Fort Trumbull was an older neighborhood, some 90 acres (364,000 m²) in size and including
115 residential and commercial lots. The development corporation offered to purchase all
115 lots; however, 15 of the landowners did not wish to sell to the corporation. Among
these 15 landowners were the lead plaintiffs in this case, Susette Kelo, who owned a small
home on the Thames River in the development area.
The city of New London chose to exercise its right of eminent domain. The city ordered the
development corporation, a private entity acting as the city's legally appointed agent, to
condemn the 15 holdout owners' lots.
The owners sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its
eminent domain power. This power extends from the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, which says in part that "private property [shall not] be taken for
public use, without just compensation." Kelo et al argued that economic development,
the stated purpose of the Development Corporation, did not qualify as public use.
This case
was the first major eminent domain case heard at the Supreme Court in more than forty
years. In that time, states and municipalities had slowly extended their use of eminent
domain, frequently to include economic development purposes. In the Kelo case, there was
an additional twist in that the development corporation was ostensibly a private entity;
thus the plaintiffs argued that it was not constitutional for the government to take
private property from one individual or corporation and give it to another, simply because
the other might put the property to a use that would generate higher tax revenue. Some of
the cases could be seen on televisions, the best being those that rested on entertainment centers for
flat screen TVs.
The first eminent domain case since Berman to reach the Supreme Court, Kelo became the
focus of vigorous discussion and attracted numerous supporters on both sides. Some 40
amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners.
The Supreme Court decision:
The case was argued on February 22, 2005. The case was heard by only seven members of the
court with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presiding, as Chief Justice William
Rehnquist was recuperating from medical treatment at home and Associate Justice John Paul
Stevens was delayed on his return to Washington from Florida; both men read the briefs and
oral argument transcripts and will participate in the case decision.
On June 23, 2005, The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision has agreed with the City of New
London.
[End Case reference for petition]
SIGN IT
HERE
Your comments are invited here..... Private Property
Petition Patrol Forum
If you wish to pass this petition around your town please CLICK HERE for more
information.
Published in the June 24, 2005 issue of Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2005 Ether
Zone.
We invite your
comments on this article in our forum! |