How Freely Enterprising
Who could ever doubt the protection of civil and property rights in America, land of the brave and the free? Certainly not most U.S. citizens, law-abiding, tax-paying individualists proud of their much-vaunted democratic system and allegiance to free enterprise. So perhaps it comes as a bit of a shock, to say the least, to some equally-proud owners of historic homes that their rights are not all that secure, after all.
Take the case of a number of home-owners in New London, Connecticutt, for example. Please do. New London resident, Susette Kelo, owner of a 19th century waterfront-neighbourhood house which she renovated in 1997 has a grievance. And who could blame her? She and six other homeowners in the neighbourhood some of whom have lived in their heritage homes their entire lives have fought their city's governing council all the way to the Supreme Court.
And lost. On June 23 of 2006 15 homes and businesses owned by families living in New London's historic Fort Trumbull neighbourhood are slated to welcome a wrecking ball. Some future for valued heritage properties. The city, it appears, took steps to condemn these properties. Irrespective of their condition, which in the case of these particular homes and businesses was impeccable due to owner pride.
The reason the council took these unprecedented steps to declare the properties unfit for human habitation? Well, to assist in appropriation so the properties could be sold to developers eager to "develop" the area for new housing, offices, and a municipal money-generating marina. Simple really, isn't it? Pride of ownership, legal property rights, all extinguished to make way for development to fill the coffers of the city and enhance the bottom lines of developers.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause authorized government seizure of private property even when it merely offers a benefit to the public, rather than actual public use. (Power of eminent domain.) Translated it means that state and local officials are given the green light to assume personal property to turn it over to a private builder as a back-handed door to economic development.
"Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her lone dissenting opinion. Although an element of protection can be sought under historic-preservation laws many towns don't have such ordinances and their elderly historic sites remain at risk of condemnation for private development.
For its part the municipal government of New London terms as "necessary revitalization" its venture at property grabs. None of the condemned properties were in poor condition, but under the guise of "revitalization" condemnation leading to property assessment values much under reality has "revitalized" city coffers in a number of ways; property owner buy-outs far below real property values, and a windfall in the sale of the same properties to private developers.
Lest one assume from the above that the burden is strictly confined to historical properties there is also a case in Lincoln, Massachusetts which has approved the demotion of a 57-year-old house located in its historic district established as such in 1981. The house has its defenders, and its imminent demise has divided the town. The building in question, a modern architect-designed structure named Heck House is to be replaced with, of all things, a "traditional looking farmhouse".
In 2005 the local Rural Land Foundation bought the 17-acre property on which Heck House stands and auctioned off the parcel that includes the 5,100-sq.ft house. The new owners plan to preserve the land, but insist they have the right to build another, replacement house on it. Not quite the same dilemma facing the hapless residents of New London, Connecticutt, but an interesting "development" nonetheless.
All giving due pause for thought.
Take the case of a number of home-owners in New London, Connecticutt, for example. Please do. New London resident, Susette Kelo, owner of a 19th century waterfront-neighbourhood house which she renovated in 1997 has a grievance. And who could blame her? She and six other homeowners in the neighbourhood some of whom have lived in their heritage homes their entire lives have fought their city's governing council all the way to the Supreme Court.
And lost. On June 23 of 2006 15 homes and businesses owned by families living in New London's historic Fort Trumbull neighbourhood are slated to welcome a wrecking ball. Some future for valued heritage properties. The city, it appears, took steps to condemn these properties. Irrespective of their condition, which in the case of these particular homes and businesses was impeccable due to owner pride.
The reason the council took these unprecedented steps to declare the properties unfit for human habitation? Well, to assist in appropriation so the properties could be sold to developers eager to "develop" the area for new housing, offices, and a municipal money-generating marina. Simple really, isn't it? Pride of ownership, legal property rights, all extinguished to make way for development to fill the coffers of the city and enhance the bottom lines of developers.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause authorized government seizure of private property even when it merely offers a benefit to the public, rather than actual public use. (Power of eminent domain.) Translated it means that state and local officials are given the green light to assume personal property to turn it over to a private builder as a back-handed door to economic development.
"Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her lone dissenting opinion. Although an element of protection can be sought under historic-preservation laws many towns don't have such ordinances and their elderly historic sites remain at risk of condemnation for private development.
For its part the municipal government of New London terms as "necessary revitalization" its venture at property grabs. None of the condemned properties were in poor condition, but under the guise of "revitalization" condemnation leading to property assessment values much under reality has "revitalized" city coffers in a number of ways; property owner buy-outs far below real property values, and a windfall in the sale of the same properties to private developers.
Lest one assume from the above that the burden is strictly confined to historical properties there is also a case in Lincoln, Massachusetts which has approved the demotion of a 57-year-old house located in its historic district established as such in 1981. The house has its defenders, and its imminent demise has divided the town. The building in question, a modern architect-designed structure named Heck House is to be replaced with, of all things, a "traditional looking farmhouse".
In 2005 the local Rural Land Foundation bought the 17-acre property on which Heck House stands and auctioned off the parcel that includes the 5,100-sq.ft house. The new owners plan to preserve the land, but insist they have the right to build another, replacement house on it. Not quite the same dilemma facing the hapless residents of New London, Connecticutt, but an interesting "development" nonetheless.
All giving due pause for thought.
Labels: Inconvenient Politics
posted by Pieface | 10:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home