The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that municipal governments could force homeowners to sell their properties in order to make way for private development.
It has been almost a year since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New London and other municipalities could force homeowners to sell their properties in order to make way for private development, but two homeowners who were central to that court case are still fighting to keep their homes.
The state was negotiating with Suzette Kelo – the homeowner named on the lawsuit known as Kelo v. City of New London – and one other homeowner, Michael Cristofaro, at press time to try to find a fair financial settlement for their houses. The deadline for the homeowners to take advantage of state assistance was June 15.
New London’s City Council voted last week to begin eviction proceedings against the remaining residents of the Fort Trumbull area, where a private developer is slated to build offices, a hotel and luxury condominiums. The city would lease the land to the developers for a dollar a year.
The City Council also recently rejected a proposal from Gov. M. Jodi Rell in which the state would have paid to move the residents’ homes to a different piece of land on the Fort Trumbull peninsula. The homeowners would have been given deeds to the land with the right to pass it on to any heirs, but would have had to give the city the first chance to buy the homes and land should they have chosen to sell.
“I believe strongly that the residents of Fort Trumbull have a right to hold property, to hold the title to that property and to pass that title on to their children,” Rell said in a prepared statement. “I want to make it clear that, for those remaining residents who do not reach a financial settlement with the city to leave their homes, the state will pay for physically moving their houses to ‘Parcel 4-A’ on the Fort Trumbull peninsula. Further, I believe they should be allowed to hold the title on those homes and to pass the title on to their children and grandchildren.”
Rell wrote a letter to New London Mayor Elizabeth Sibilia outlining the proposal on June 2.
Calls to the New London city manager and mayor’s office, and to a lawyer dealing with the issue on behalf of the city, went unreturned earlier this week, so it was not clear why the council rejected the governor’s proposal. Rell, however, said the deed restriction that would allow homeowners to pass down their homes was the stumbling block, but added that she hopes it can be overcome.
Rell stands by her Fort Trumbull proposal, according to Ronald Angelo, deputy commissioner for the state Department of Economic and Community Development.
Negotiations Ongoing
The state’s mediator is Bob Albright of the Department of Economic and Community Development, according to the Associated Press. The governor has pushed for a resolution to the Fort Trumbull matter.
“I have asked Mr. Albright to work throughout the day and late into the night to try to reach a settlement with those two homeowners,” Rell told the AP. “If that is not feasible, hopefully the City Council will come back and take my suggestion once again and perhaps go in that direction. But right now we continue negotiations.”
New London’s City Council decided to develop the 90 acres of land near the Thames River in the late 1990s, after Pfizer Inc. built its research facility nearby. The city transferred the power of eminent domain to the New London Development Corp., a private organization, and in 2000, the development corporation notified residents that their homes were being taken.
Most of the homes on the 90 acres have been taken and torn down.
The city’s actions and the resulting Supreme Court decision have been a concern for Realtors across the country. The National Association of Realtors, along with the National Association of Home Builders, filed an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief with the Supreme Court siding with the homeowners.
Both NAHB and NAR long have fought for affordable housing and property rights. In the brief, NAHB recognized the economic development benefits of commercial uses, but questioned using economic development as a sole reason for exercising the right of eminent domain.
The Supreme Court’s decision allows for states to change their eminent domain laws, and the issue has since come up in many state capitals across the country.
