Fort Trumbull lies on the Thames River just North of the intersection of the Long Island, Block Island and Fishers Island Sounds. It is just one and a half miles South of New London. A visit to the New London Development Corporation's web site will give you a good idea of what's going on in this dynamic area of the city.
The closing of the Naval facility that had employed 1,500 in the mid 1990's left the Trumbull Peninsula open to a myriad of development opportunities. For the record, having researched the development that has evolved over the past 10 years, I am almost completely in favor of it. It is a wonderful opportunity for the city and one that will surely lead to a revitalization of Fort Trumbull and New London.
I am not, however, in favor of this decision and I'll tell you why I don't think you should be either...
The parcels in question in the case decided today by the Supreme Court have no bearing on the success or failure of that development. They are periphery lots. In fact, if left in the hands of the private owners, the blocks in question would surely, over the course of the next decade see an organic and natural reinvestment as the individual property values elevated.
The buildings today are 30-50 foot wide lots with individual character. They could spawn local coffee shops, mixed with town houses and specialty shops and professional offices. What will now happen instead is that the blocks in question will be leveled in one fell swoop, to be replaced by what will most likely be character-less speculative office buildings set back from the street and floating in a sea of parking lot. The rise in property value that the current owners could expect to see in the future is being stripped from them. It is a travesty, because "fair market value" prior to a successful development is not the same as "fair market value" afterwards.
The property owners who filed this case are not deadbeats, nor are they slumlords. They are instead positive and contributing members of the Fort Trumbull community. The SCOTUS decision itself describes them as such:
Petitioner Susette Kelo has lived in the Fort Trumbull area since 1997. She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery was born in her Fort Trumbull house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life. Her husband Charles (also a petitioner) has lived in the house since they married some 60 years ago. In all, the nine petition-ers own 15 properties in Fort Trumbull--4 in parcel 3 of the development plan and 11 in parcel 4A. Ten of the parcels are occupied by the owner or a family member; the other five are held as investment properties. There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or oth-erwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area. In December 2000, petitioners brought this action in the New London Superior Court. They claimed, among other things, that the taking of their properties would violate the "public use" restriction in the Fifth Amendment. After a 7-day bench trial, the Superior Court granted a perma-nent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the prop-erties located in parcel 4A (park or marina support). It, however, denied petitioners relief as to the properties located in parcel 3 (office space). 2 App. to Pet. for Cert.343-350.4
After the Superior Court ruled, both sides took appeals to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. That court held, over a dissent, that all of the City's proposed takings were valid. It began by upholding the lower court's determina-tion that the takings were authorized by chapter 132, the State's municipal development statute. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §8-186 et seq. (2005). That statute expresses a legislative determination that the taking of land, even developed land, as part of an economic development pro-ject is a "public use" and in the "public interest." 268 Conn., at 18-28, 843 A. 2d, at 515-521. Next, relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229 (1984), and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), the court held that such economic development qualified as a valid public use under both the Federal and State Constitutions. 268 Conn., at 40, 843 A. 2d, at 527.
These are the type of owners that could be counted on to make the most of their investments.
The precedent cases cited by the court, such as Berman vs Parker and Hawaii Housing Authority vs Midkiff, pertain to the aquisition of private property in the interest of "public use" as it pertains to public housing or housing development.
The language in the 5th Amendment states only that "[no] private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation". It makes no reference at all to private property being taken for private use. I contend that this was not an oversight, but that it understood a priori that this situation would never be considered by a just and moral society. The court decision makes reference to this by stating:
Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future "use by the public" is the purpose of the taking; the condemnation of land for a railroad with common-carrier duties is a familiar example. Neither of these propositions, however, determines the disposition of this case.
The development of Fort Trumbull consists of 7 parcels of land. 1-3 are the primary parcels that are situated on the mostly vacant grounds (see image LEFT) of the old Naval Base and are developed (per the court decision text):
"Parcel 1 is designated for a waterfront conference hotel at the center of a "small urban village" that will include restaurants and shopping. This parcel will also have marinas for both recreational and commercial uses. A pedestrian "riverwalk" will originate here and continue down the coast, connecting the waterfront areas of the development. Parcel 2 will be the site of approximately 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development, including the state park. This parcel also includes space reserved for a new U. S. Coast Guard Museum. Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square feet of research and development office space."
DTL 1: Existing Buildings in Susette Kelo's Block |
This is all well and good, and I am greatly in favor of it. What bothers me is moving outside this area to Susette Kelo's and her neighbors' blocks, which are designated in Parcel 4 of the development (see DTL 1). It consists of a few buildings set up on the street, surrounded by trees. I am unfamiliar with the condition of the block since I've never been to the site, but whether or not these buildings or the grounds are pristine is not the real issue here. I contend that leaving the individual owners to decide how to best develop their block is in everyone's eventual interest (except of course the developer who would like to market an entire block).
DTL 2A: Existing Buildings in parcel 5B |
I was unable to find a rendering of the proposal for block 4A on the New London Development Corporation's website, but I was able to find a design for a similar parcel, parcel 5B (see DTL 2A). Similarly, the buildings are set up on the street and have individual character. They could be adapted for re-use, demolished and re-built by individual lot, or just kept well in their existing capacities.
DTL 2B: Proposal for parcel 5B from NLDC website |
Instead, the development plans to level the block and build what you see in DTL 2B: a suburban style big box retailer with sufficient "peak capacity" parking all around. In essence a stripping of the fabric of the community.
I ask you: is this the definition of "PUBLIC USE" that we want to support? To me, this looks more like the taking of property A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B. If you were the owner of a home or business in what has been so clinically referred to as "parcel 4B", would you pack your things and go?
This is not a matter of siding with the Libertarians. Please look past the fact that for once Justices Thomas and Scalia agree with my position (yikes!). It always behooves liberals to side with the cause of justice and the rights of individuals at all times and to follow the golden principals of fairness without regard to politics and without hypocrisy.
It is the force of commerce that is directly involved in this application of eminent domain. There is not sufficient public use that will come of the taking of these properties.
To close, I submit a quote from Justice O'Conner's dissenting opinion. As you read it, reflect on those in our party who agree with this opinion. Can we do so colectively and claim to be the party of Empathy and compassion for the common citizen?
Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery, for example, lives in a house on Walbach Street that has been in her family for over 100 years. She was born in the house in 1918; her husband, petitioner Charles Dery, moved into the house when they married in 1946. Their son lives next door with his family in the house he received as a wedding gift, and joins his parents in this suit.
Update [2005-6-24 00:55:00 by intrados]::I think I got parcels 4A and 4B mixed up, but I don't think it detracts from the general point. Apologies.