Kelo Fallout Continues
on Jul 12, 2005 at 2:16 pm
This is one of a series of continuing reports on the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s June 23 decision in Kelo v. New London, a 5-4 decision upholding local government takeover of private property for private economic redevelopment.
In the most decisive move so far to try to blunt the impact of the Court’s Kelo decision, Democratic leaders of Connecticut’s General Assembly notified all local governments in the state on Monday to “put on hold” any “local land takeover plans” as the legislature begins a study on possible changes in state laws on eminent domain.
“We need to let the public know we will address the Supreme Court ruling in a way that will produce legislation that ensures fairness and balance,” state Senate president pro tem Donald E. Williams Jr. said in a statement. “In the meantime, municipalities should know that this effort is underway so there is no confusion as we go forward.” House Speaker James Amann said in a separate statement: “One thing is certain — Connecticut’s eminent domain laws will be changing and our municipalities should put any property takeover plans on hold immediately.”
Two committees of the legislature will begin exploring possible amendments at hearings starting soon, the leaders told media reporters in Hartford. On Monday, the leaders released a study by the state Office of Legislative Research cataloguing more than 75 laws that now govern eminent domain in the state.
The state’s Republican leadership — including Gov. M. Jodi Rell — has been pressing for a quick response to the Kelo decision, and have called for a special session of the legislature. After the Democratic leaders announced hearings on the issue, the governor said that was “the first step,” but cautioned that “we should not let the matter drag on for months.”
Rell was harsh in her criticism of the Supreme Court. “This issue,” she said in a statement Monday, “is the 21st Century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party: the government taking away the rights and liberties of property owners without giving them a voice. But this time it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting — it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington.”
Referring to the Court’s ruling in the New London case, state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, a Democrat, told reporters in Hartford: “The legal case is over, but towns in our state exist by virtue of state law…theoretically, we could tell them to stop if that’s what we wanted to do.” In an account of his remarks, the New London newspaper, The Day, quoted Lawlor as saying: “I think we all agree that we want to draw a line to make it impossible to seize private homes simply to benefit a private developer. We want to prohibit it.”
