You just see the corner of my house, upper corner right behind the back, just the tip of it.
Of course we'll get a good shot of Pfizer now.
There it is
Pfizer, big old Pfizer looming in the distance.
-Hi everyone I'm Kristina Boisoneau. Our top story tonight
residents in the historic Fort Trumbull area of New London are fighting to save their homes.
On Monday they'll head to court to resolve their dispute over land proposed for the multimillion
dollar redevelopment of the waterfront neighborhood. Sara Welch is live tonight in New London with
more on this story. Hi, Sara.
-Hi Kristina.
The focus of this argument centers around what is public use. Eminent domain allows a municipality
to buy up and take a person's property if it is in fact for public use. Neighbors in this area
say when it comes to the Fort Trumbull project, that isn't the case and they say they're fighting
to keep what's rightfully theirs.
-Eminent domain is supposed to be used for a public use
like a road, or a bridge, or a public school,
not to give from one private owner
and hand it over to another private owner in the name of economic redevelopment.
-The Institute for Justice litigates these type of cases all over the country. Opening arguments
in the trial
are set to begin tomorrow morning.
-I won't leave.
Unless they drag me out by my ankles I'm not going.
-3 East Street is home to Susette Kelo. She's lived here for 4 years with her husband Tim.
-It's a nice neighborhood, nice people living here, nice Victorian older homes,
just a real tight
family-like community.
We don't want to give up our property
for anything. It's not like it's for roads, or bridges. It's for absolutely nothing.
They have no plan.
-This is a working-class neighborhood
that's located on a beautiful stretch of waterfront property
on the Thames river in New London
and I think the attitude is that what are people like this
doing with this prime waterfront property? We could have other people in here that
would enjoy it so much more. -The Statute that is authorizing eminent domain for this
purpose is unconstitutional. -That is the first prong of our public use argument.
-Lawyer Dana Berliner argues against what these demonstrators call eminent domain abuse.
They say the New London Development Commission has no constitutional right to force people
to sell their homes for the sake of economic development. It'll be 3 or 4 months
at least before the Supreme Court makes its decision. If it rules against the city and
in the protesters' favor, then the city will just have to work around the 7 homes.
-This is not a case where you have to decide between having development on one hand and
respecting the constitutional rights of homeowners on the other.
They can do both.
-However, based on the justices' questions there's no telling what the court will do.
-Property owners in one New London neighborhood may be losing a long battle to save their
homes.
The State Supreme Court has ruled that the New London Development Corporation can take
the remaining
15 homes from
near Fort Trumbull State Park.
-When Susette Kelo moved into her charming home in New London, Connecticut 7 years ago...
-It was like I've been here all my life, it was just a warm and inviting feeling.
-A little slice of heaven on the water,
the best house she could find for her money.
7 months after moving in, though, Kelo was told she had to move out.
-I was thinking I had a really big problem.
-The Supreme Court has agreed to decide if governments can seize people's homes and businesses
for economic development projects.
At issue is interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to claim private
property for eminent domain, as long as the owner is given compensation for the land
being used for the public good.
The case centers around several homeowners in New London, Connecticut who filed a lawsuit
after city officials announced plans to tear down their homes and build a hotel, health club,
and offices. -Susette Kelo cried with joy after learning that her battle
will go to the US Supreme Court. -Of course you can see ferries go by and the
submarines go by.
-Kelo says she likes the riverfront view from her circa 1893 home
just the way it is.
She's glad the US Supreme Court wants to decide if a cash-strapped city can take
land that's privately owned and give it to private businesses all of the name of generating
tax revenues and jobs. -We're really just seven people.
You know, it's a big step for us to be taken by the United States Supreme Court. It's
a wonderful thing,
but still we have a long road ahead of us.
-They have more than enough room to develop everything that they want to develop, we just
simply wanted to keep our homes.
-But an attorney for the city counters this is necessary for the greater good.
-If you don't have a job,
and you don't have essential services that you need if you're in the city, and the city
can't afford it, then that's just as important in our view as eliminating blight or
making the trains run on time. -Lawyer Scott Bullock argued the city abused its Fifth Amendment
right to eminent domain which lets government seize land for public use.
He said the law should apply to roads and bridges, not malls and luxury condos. A lawyer
for the city argued eminent domain is a vital economic development tool.
-It might have been impossible to build the World Trade Center where it was.
-For the residents,
this fight isn't about houses it's about their homes. -It strikes me that the Supreme Court of
the United States does not side with you and your client
Susette Kelo. There is not a homeowner of limited means in the country who will be safe again.
Am I missing something here?
-The only thing you're missing is there's not a homeowner of any means
that will be safe again because
every single home in the country would produce more jobs if it were an office building.
And according to New London that's enough to take your house.
-New London homeowners who've spent 5 years fighting to keep their own houses,
now have 90 days
to move out. -The Supreme Court sided with the city this summer, ruling it could
seize private property for public use.
This week the city started sending vacate notices to the remaining property owners who are still fighting mad.
-The City of New London, Connecticut may have won the Supreme Court battle over
its right to seize private property for another private use, which the city deemed
in its best interest, and in the best interest of the community,
but as FOX News Correspondent Major Garrett reports, the political war continued today when homeowner
Susette Kelo testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
-Ms. Kelo came to Washington and was in no mood to compromise. -This battle against eminent domain
abuse may have started as a way for me to save my
little pink cottage, but has rightfully grown into something much larger.
-In June, The Supreme Court sided with the city, touching off bipartisan outrage.
-If there's anything that I think should take high priority
in America it is the protection of private property. -This is something that every American
and certainly every
member of Congress can identify with.
-New London offered to buy Kelo's home.
She said principal meant more than price. -This isn't about compensation. This
is about property rights and people being able to keep their own
homes.
-Remember that landmark Supreme Court ruling known as the Kelo decision? The court decided in
that case that eminent domain allowed the City of New London, Connecticut, to seize a private
owner's land and house
for economic redevelopment by another private owner. The ruling was fresh and very unpopular,
it forces Susette Kelo to sell her home which she never wanted to leave. Now
3 years later Kelo's house has been torn down
and a lot where it once stood is vacant.
In fact, Real Clear Markets reports that there is no new construction in the area because the
city's sponsored developer has been unable to secure financing
because interest in the project is minimal.
-Despite losing her battle in the Supreme Court, Kelo's fight has already prompted 42 other
states
to make it tougher for governments to seize property for private development.
-The Little pink house at the bottom of the hill is born again.
It used to be here but the City of New London evicted Susette Kelo
under the hammer of
eminent domain. -Your property's your property and
we shouldn't have to give up our property so somebody else can make money off it.
-But Kelo did have to give it up after losing her Supreme Court battle. But
moving and saying goodbye to her pink house were two completely different things.
For years she was friends with this man Avner Gregory who came to the rescue and bought the
home for 1 crisp dollar bill. -Why did I buy it?
To me this house represents respect.
It was a home,
somebody lived here.
-For him to take this on was a wonderful thing and I can't thank him enough. We approached
him last year and he took some time and he thought about it.
He agreed to it and the house was taken apart board by board and it was brought over here.
-3 years ago when Susette Kelo was told to get out of Fort Trumbull the City of New London
said that retail developers were chomping at the bit to turn this into a
business mecca. But as you can see that hasn't exactly happened.
-That's one of the tragedies of this entire story. They
threw Susette Kelo
and her neighbors out of this wonderful neighborhood and now 3 years
after the Supreme Court decision 78 million dollars in taxpayer money spent,
no new development. -But at 36 Franklin things are a little rosier
and a little more secure. Not for sale to anyone for 99 years, Avner Gregory agreed
to that, but oh that pink color.
Avner struggled with that one.
-Part of the agreement with the Institute of Justice and Susette Kelo
was that I had to keep it pink.
I know that you have a pink shirt on today,
but I'm not so fond of the pink. That was a little bit of a stumbling
block. -But a deal was done, one that included a monument out front in a testament to her
epic battle against eminent domain, and as John Mellencamp would say...
"Ain't that America."