Eminent Domain gets even nuttier

A New (London) Low
A refrigerator box under the bridge: The Kelo Seven prepares for the worst
by Jonathan O'Connell - July 14, 2005

<snip>

The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city (of New London's) original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.

In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

<snip>

In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any money made from tenants - some residents' only form of income - would also have to be paid to the city.

With language seemingly lifted straight from The Goonies, NLDC's lawyers wrote, "We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case." They warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be.

<snip>

Read the entire article here: http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000