Kelo v. New London: The Aftermath
Posted: September 29th, 2009 | Author: Daniel | Filed under: Photography, law | Tags: kelo, kelo v. new london, new london | 9 Comments »In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled on the controversial property rights case–Kelo v. New London. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that cities could exercise eminent domain for purely economic development purposes, even if they took the land from one private property owner and transferred it to another. According to the Court, this was an acceptable “public use” under the Fifth Amendment.
But governments do not necessarily make good decisions about economic development and the Kelo situation is a good example. It’s four years after the Supreme Court’s decision and the land the land that the City of New London took from Susette Kelo and her neighbors for “economic development” is still vacant. None of the 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues have materialized.
Earlier in the month, my wife and I were near New London, so we stopped by to see what the land looks like today. Below are picture I took of the site:
View to the south from where Susette Kelo’s house once stood:
View to the west from where Susette Kelo’s house once stood:
Trees on the Susette Kelo’s block:
View to the north on East street:
One block North from Susette Kelo’s, more condemned land:
View to the north, same location:
Bing maps has a nice aerial perspective of this location, especially when you use the Bird’s Eye feature.
This is a sad case of hubris. People homes were taken and replaced with empty lots?
[...] of the Comments links to recent pictures of the site. Categories: Property Rights, [...]
[...] Daniel at my post a few days ago on the Associated Press’s Kelp update has some pictures at his place of the New London, CT area in [...]
[...] land vacant today, Pfizer is leaving. Nice work New London. A couple months ago my wife and I stopped by New London and took some pictures. Here’s what the view from Susette Kelo’s house looks like [...]
“It hurts when they steal your dreams…” Author unknown. I think it was a poem or a song. Mark Hillyard foster@inreach.com
Great pictures and article. It is yet another reminder that in the long run, people never prosper with ill-gotten gain. A monument to folly should be erected there.
The people in the area who recognize this as harm having been done could – and should – practice negative social preferencing towards those city government officials who voted for the expropriation and those who enforced it. Protesting in public (in person or on the Internet) is good, but not enough. More on this idea in, “Protests are Not Enough” – http://selfsip.org/focus/protestsnotenough.html
Do you have or have you seen “before” photos that would contrast your “after” photos?
I don’t have before pictures. If you go to this aerial view from Bing, you can see what it looked like during the legal battle: http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=qwqkj68zrtjw&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=15268517&where1=trumbull%20street%20and%20east%20street%2C%20new%20london%2C%20ct&encType=1 Some of the house had been removed but the people who were fighting against the city, their houses still stood.
[...] Kelo v. New London: The Aftermath | Life, Liberty, and Property.Two cases have recently brought Eminent Domain to the front pages. One, the Kelo case from 2005, and the other, Brooklyn’s own Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation, decided two weeks ago. In both cases it was successfully argued that the potential gains to a city of a property development are sufficient to justify taking people’s property that sits where the development will be built. In New London, Connecticut, a Pfizer facility was to be built on the land of the plaintiff, Susette Kelo. In Brooklyn, a shopping mall and basketball stadium are to be built. In both cases it was found that the land was blighted and that the developments will improve it, and be beneficial in a number of ways: they’ll clean it up, they’ll bring construction jobs, they’ll bring retail jobs, they will draw people to the area and thereby benefit the surrounding community. That sounds great, but how do you measure these benefits? And does the rule of law have the tools to do so? [...]