Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
How Much Is A House Worth?
Here's an angle to the New London story I was unaware of:
Let me see if I've got this straight.
On day one the government says, "We're going to take you house and land and give it to this company over here."
You say, "That's not right, I'm taking you to court."
They reply, "Ok, take us to court. But if we win, you owe us rent starting today."
You say, "Umm...ok. But if we win, you owe us all legal fees and additional compensation for emotional distress." (I don't think the homeowners actually said this, but I wish they had.)
The gov. replies, "Hahahahaha (wipes tears of laughter from The Eye*)...boy oh boy, now that's rich. My servants were right, you will peons can be so entertaining."
On day (approx) 1,826, the government rules that the government wins and they claim that they had actually owned your property from day one. Consequently, not only are you going to lose your home, but you owe the government rent?!
And here I thought my blood had already boiled. If this is true...words fail me, and fortunately I don't think any more are required.
More:
So, when the government claims that they owned the property since Day One, does that mean that they will be reimbursing the homeowners for their mortgage payments, property taxes, etc.? How about doing so with interest? While Big Brother might claim that the homeowners also owe rent, I wonder who would really end up in the red. If the homeowners have been paying their mortgagues while the government actually owned the property, aren't they due to be reimbursed with interest? After all, their money has been held (against their will) by a third party and they deserve "just compensation".
|
NEW LONDON, Conn. -- With a long-running lawsuit over, homeowners and New London officials are now turning their attention to the monetary value of houses and property being taken to make way for a commercial development.Well, isn't that nice. Talk about rubbing salt in the wounds with a little post injury insult to boot.
[...]
State law requires governments to compensate owners on the date of the taking, not its value in the current market. New London has technically owned the houses since 2000.
[...]
More than a year ago, lawyers for the homeowners were informed that their clients could be liable for use and occupancy fees if the courts upheld the city's use of eminent domain. City lawyers said then they wanted to give ample warning about the potential costs.
Let me see if I've got this straight.
On day one the government says, "We're going to take you house and land and give it to this company over here."
You say, "That's not right, I'm taking you to court."
They reply, "Ok, take us to court. But if we win, you owe us rent starting today."
You say, "Umm...ok. But if we win, you owe us all legal fees and additional compensation for emotional distress." (I don't think the homeowners actually said this, but I wish they had.)
The gov. replies, "Hahahahaha (wipes tears of laughter from The Eye*)...boy oh boy, now that's rich. My servants were right, you will peons can be so entertaining."
On day (approx) 1,826, the government rules that the government wins and they claim that they had actually owned your property from day one. Consequently, not only are you going to lose your home, but you owe the government rent?!
And here I thought my blood had already boiled. If this is true...words fail me, and fortunately I don't think any more are required.
More:
So, when the government claims that they owned the property since Day One, does that mean that they will be reimbursing the homeowners for their mortgage payments, property taxes, etc.? How about doing so with interest? While Big Brother might claim that the homeowners also owe rent, I wonder who would really end up in the red. If the homeowners have been paying their mortgagues while the government actually owned the property, aren't they due to be reimbursed with interest? After all, their money has been held (against their will) by a third party and they deserve "just compensation".
|
