When you hear that the Kelo v. New London case is causing a backlash all over the nation, it is not an exaggeration. Every day, you can find stories like this:
The city redevelopment authority on Tuesday urged the city to reject a proposal to rein in the city’s authority to seize private property for economic development.
Ald. Cindy Kilkenny has drafted a measure asking the Brookfield Common Council to prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire properties to resell for private economic development, a practice used in nearby Waukesha to revitalize the downtown.
Kilkenny has joined state and federal lawmakers in seeking to restrict local government’s use of eminent domain, also known as condemnation of property, in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the practice.
But members of the city’s Community Development Authority said that the city should not rush to pass the ban, and should wait to see whether the Legislature changes Wisconsin’s eminent domain laws.
CDA members Gordon Rozmus and Mike Arneson opposed stripping the city of the redevelopment power.
“I think it’s a very valuable tool,” Rozmus said, adding that the city may need to use it in the future. “This is a tool that cities need and we have to keep.”
Member Nate Cunniff called Kilkenny’s proposal an “overreaction” to the June court decision.
“We need to keep our collective calm here and not react to one case – or overreact to it,” Cunniff said.
Again, I have a rather extreme position on this issue, so a little overreaction is just fine with me. I think cities/townships who are seizing land should be required to go through a brutal process of justifying their need, be required to wait a specified period (2-3 years), be required to provide alternative solutions should they not be allowed to take the land they want, and they should be required to pay the landowners an obscene amount of cash.
And that is my position for land that would be used for the common good (roads, etc.), and not merely given to other private citizens as it was in the Kelo case.
Mr Furious
Excellent common sense suggestions, John.
I think the Kelo verdict was an abomination, but I’m not a lawyer or a Constitutional expert—I just know it crosses the grain of everything I think should be fair and legal. But people far smarter than me (and some guy named BinkyBoy) have made valid cases that the judgement was sound decision legally. The problem lies with legislation.
People (and groups) need to put pressure on officials NOW, while this issue is hot, to put laws requiring the things that John suggests into law. It has to be on the books before the next Kelo rises its ugly head. waiting until they tack the “Condemned” sticker on your door is too late.
What happened in Trumbell is a fucking straight-up robbery, and I couldn’t believe (at the time) the verdict. Now, I actually understand it even if I can’t believe it. The robbery was not against the law…
Mr Furious
I meant the Fort Trumbull section of New London. There actually is a town in CT called Trumbull, and it’s nowhere near New London.
goonie bird
Its time to remove all five of those irresponsible judges they should not even be allowed to judge a pet show and whats more they should all lose their homes they deserve to be made homeless
PotVsKtl
This sort of outcome is exactly the intended response to the Kelo ruling. The case was decided on pure Constitutional grounds. The whole POINT is that local officials should be drafting these sorts of measures to rein in landgrabs. The New London board are egregiously abusing the decision, to be sure. That doesn’t make the decision wrong. I find it ironic that so many people are now CALLING for judicial activism in regards to Kelo.