Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

A decade after Kelo v New London Socialism has failed (Fort Trumbull still an empty lot)

In 2005, the Fort Trumbull area of New London Connecticut was a growing middle class neighborhood. The people there were hard working and spent much of their lives building their homes and living out prosperous lives.

That came to an end in 2000 when Liberal Fascist Democrats in City hall and in the state capitol of Hartford made a deal with Pfizer corporation to allow them to build a research laboratory and upscale housing in Fort Trumbull. According to estimates by the same lying fascists, over 5000 new jobs would be created.

Connecticut was one of the states hardest hit by the recession over a year later and the need for jobs pushed ahead this evil plan to deprive hard working citizens of their property. In 2004 the plan was approved and notice was issued to citizens in Fort Trumbull that their neighborhoods were to be demolished. These poor people were left scrambling with little time to move out.

The Government always targets those who it think cannot fight back. This is just one of the reasons socialism and big government is a threat to liberty and is not compatible with a free society. The timely motto by Gandhi that how a nation treats its weakest and most vulnerable is another reason that Socialism and large governments are a threat that must be rejected

The neighborhood was in shock. Under the 5th amendment, government cannot seize land unless it is to be used for public purposes. Furthermore it states that they must be fully compensated. For the citizens of Fort Trumbull that right was violated in both ways. Government made a deal to give it away to a private company with no strings attached. Further the people were compensated with less than what their homes were worth. All that hard work they put in was for nothing. It was taken away.

Attempts to fight back were fruitless. There was little time and government was too big. Laws and loopholes made it difficult for Fort Trumbull residents to get around the legal system to try and delay the action. But it was too difficult at first and many firms just didn't have the resources. This is why liberals support big government, because the bigger the government, the harder it is to fight back. It is even worse for those who are weak and poor.

The Government always targets those who it think cannot fight back. This is just one of the reasons socialism and big government is a threat to liberty and is not compatible with a free society. The timely motto by Gandhi that how a nation treats its weakest and most vulnerable is another reason that Socialism and large governments are a threat that must be rejected. But liberals support crushing the weak and the poor and yet they claim to be for the little guy.

Fortunately there was outside help. Citizens around New England and America were outraged by the government's plan to remove the right to own property in such a manner and thanks to strong public will, the development plan was delayed. The case went to the supreme court under Kelo V New London. It was argued that New London violated the 5th amendment by confiscating property under compulsory purchase to transfer it to a private entity. 

Despite public pressure, including opposition to the plan by even people on the left, The Supreme court ruled 5 to 4 that the government had the right to confiscate property and give it to any private entity it wanted. The ruling was made by John Paul Stevens, communist and traitor who thankfully is now retired and waiting to pass on into the fire along with co-conspirators, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souther, Stephen Bryer and Anthony Kennedy.

The argument that one persons right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be terminated for public good has never in history done the public any good to the individual or the public. History shows that when the government can take down the rights and dignity of one or more individuals, the public as a whole is no longer secure in its rights and the public loses its rights. Instead they now have privileges that are revoked at a whim at anytime.

 The ruling, the decision written by the so called Justice John Paul Stevens and the concurences by other left wing judges is even more astounding and frightening. Justice Stevens along with Kennedy argued that courts should decide in these cases what is good for the community and developer instead of worrying about the fate of the poor victim who is forced to sell of his or her property at a low amount. 

The ruling also failed to take into account the influence and power of the private entity in question. In a scathing rebuke written by liberal Justice Sandra Day O'connor (and this time she got it right folks!)
O'connor denounced the ruling and showed the dangers of this new precedent that assaulted one of America's foundations, the right to own property. The dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this taking power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion— take from the poor, give to the rich— would become the norm, not the exception:

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms

Sure enough the predictions of Sandra Day O'connor were true. Following the ruling, big corporations and development firms such as Wal-mart, Johnson & Johnson, Target and others began pursuing development plans with local cities. Cleavland, Cincinnati and New York were the hardest hit. Of those who suffered the most, minorities and the poor.

Several states have tried to intervene to stop eminent domain and make it illegal for the government to seize property. Not surprisingly, conservative states have been the most successful while those run by socialists including Maine have halted attempts to stifle this new precedent.

 As I said before, minorities and the poor have the most to lose and have lost the most. The left pretty much supports this since as Hillary has stated, it is good for the government to take things away for the greater good. Liberals always hate freedom and the rights of individuals. The argument that one person's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be terminated for public good has never in history done the public any good to the individual or the public. History shows that when the government can take down the rights and dignity of one or more individuals, the public as a whole is no longer secure in its rights and the public loses its rights. Instead they now have privileges that are revoked at a whim at anytime.

Poverty and crime is always greatest in areas that practice socialism because private property is not held up as sacred and as a right. The individual has little or no right but to go along with the collective and cannot provide for ones self or dependents to survive. Property and life are rights that are not only compatible but inseperable. Take one and both are demolished.

After the ruling, the people were forced to leave as Democrats demolished their homes. Pfizer later called off the deal citing that it was no longer profitible. In fact eminent domain made that even more so. Why build when the government can take it. As result the land remained fallow and empty.

Almost 10 years after Kelo V New London, the ruling that gutted the right to own property and assets in this country and perverted the meaning of the 5th amendment, the land that once held bustling neighborhoods of decent people in America is still vacant. There are no jobs there, there are no homes there. The lot is now home to feral cats and hobos that periodically camp there.

The City of New London also suffered. Scores of Thousands of jobs including 2000 government jobs were lost there. Many will not do business in Connecticut and other states for fear of having their property seized at a loss. New London like many other cities in that state has also suffered higher crime rates. New London shortly after the Kelo ruling suffered more murders in that state even Hartford.

And yet, we are told by liberals that the government is never wrong. we are told by liberals that this would lead to the greater good this confiscation of property. We are also told by liberals that it is good to suffer social injustice by the state and yet where are those jobs we were promised? Whatever happened to the homes and prosperity?

Today's connecticut is so much like other liberal sewers like New Jersey and New York. Infested with liberal bums, the kind that listen to rap noise, wear their baseball caps backwards and pretend to be black, the kind that opposes property and freedom and that will kill any black that walks into their neighborhood. Well black or white your neighborhood if you are unfortunate to be in New England is very colorful. Crime riden, poverty stricken, full of robberis and murders. The police are also murderers in Connecticut. It was only recently in East Haven which had one of the most homicidal pig forces in the region was finally restrained by the government only after one murder too many.

This is the other after affect of Socialism and Kelo. This is what Connecticut also got in return for shelving property rights and voting Democrat. Crime, poverty and bloody murdering communist policemen. Poverty and crime is always greatest in areas that practice socialism because private property is not held up as sacred and as a right. The individual has little or no right but to go along with the collective and cannot provide for ones self or dependents to survive. Property and life are rights that are not only compatible but inseperable. Take one and both are demolished.

Hence, Connecticut is the cesspit of New England. Only Rhode Island which has the highest level of mentally ill and a super corrupt government and a poverty right just above Vermont and Maine comes close as does Massachusetts.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

You left out two things bro.

1. Federal judges including Barack Hussein's nominees such as the wise latina Sotomeyor also supported Kelo on the grounds that confiscation of property is okay if it had any benefits to the community. Kagel also supported Kelo and I think Gerrick Garland or whoever his name was was okay with it.

2. While poor people especially poor minorities will suffer, the ruling will favor minority groups with special privileges. Expect whitey to have his white butt thrown out of his neighborhood to make way for new low income projects for illegal aliens. Also we can expect under Bernie Sanders to see upscale housing torn down and replaced for environmental reasons or for reasons like diversity.

Patrick Shaner said...

Often left out of discussions about the Kelo decision was a mention in that finding that Connecticut's State Constitution did not prohibit the practice of using eminent domain for the purpose of increasing the tax base. The point of the taking in New London was the city expected to get more revenue from the Pfizer project than the existing homes, and that was the "public purpose" served. It sucks to be New London because they failed to secure an enforceable promise from Pfizer to follow up with the development. Tough noogies.

Many states have in their State Constitutions a clause that states, merely increasing revenue is not a proper public use. SCOTUS specifically stated in Kelo those states are not covered by Kelo. Of course, that's being disputed across the country and others are having to continue the fight.

Shortly after Kelo, in Mesa AZ, the city tried to take a man's Brake Shop and sell/give the property to a well-connected owner of a Tru-Value hardware store because it would "look better" and generate more tax revenue. Institute for Justice took the case for the Brake Shop and defeated the city in the AZ Supreme Court because AZ's Constitution clearly prohibited the purpose for the taking.

Baily's Brake Service is still in business to this day. You can fight City Hall, but you have to have a State Constitution that has your back.

Trump2016 said...

The purpose of eminent domain is for public land use not private. Donald Trump got into a lot of trouble over it but clarified that he supports eminent domain for public land use. The state has to pay you a fair amount BTW. So you'd make a fortune. The Kelo incident at Fort Trumbull was not for that purpose but SCOTUS decided it would. then again they didn't make Pfizer accountable and follow through to build it. Pfizer then decided that a competitor could do the same thing so went elsewhere.

We need to fight it on a state level or get a court ruling or amendment to the constitution that states that private land use or for supposedly increasing the tax base is a Bozo No no. Fort Trumbull demonstrates that this policy is flawed and unjust. KELO needs to be rewritten.