-Caveat Lector-

------- Forwarded message follows -------

July 23, 2001

                   Refusing to Let Go, Property Owners Test Eminent
                   Domain's Limits

                   By LAURA MANSNERUS

                        NEW LONDON, Conn., July 19 ‹ The owners of
                        the last houses amid the scarred and weedy lots of
                        Fort Trumbull ask only to stay there while the
                   city of New London realizes its dream of office
                   buildings, apartment clusters and other upscale
                   development rising in their neighborhood.

                   But when the seven property owners go to Superior
                   Court here Monday, they will challenge a larger practice
                   that needy cities everywhere have latched on to: using
                   the power of eminent domain, or condemnation, to force
                   property owners to turn over their land to private
                   developers.

                   Such redevelopment projects promise jobs and tax
                   revenue in places, like New London, where private
                   investors are hard to find. And that reasoning has
                   generally satisfied courts that are asked to decide
                   whether displacing one private property owner on behalf
                   of another would, as the Constitution requires, serve a
                   "public use."

                   But the New London case poses the question of whether
                   this principle has any limits. And Matt Dery, whose
                   family has owned houses in the old Italian-American
                   neighborhood of Fort Trumbull since 1901, thinks it
                   does. Mr. Dery acknowledged the sad condition of his
                   city, the fourth poorest in Connecticut. But he asked:
                   "Anybody who can make more money gets the property? I
                   don't think that's what the founding fathers had in
                   mind."

Full story at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/23/nyregion/23SEIZ.html


------- End of forwarded message -------

--

Best Wishes


Free institutions are not the property of any majority.  They do not
confer upon majorities unlimited powers.  The rights of the majority
are limited rights.  They are limited not only by the constitutional
guarantees but by the moral principle implied in those guarantees.
That principle is that men may not use the facilities of liberty to
impair them.  No man may invoke a right in order to destroy
it.     - Walter Lippmann

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to