http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Conn-land-taken-from-apf-465269657.html?x=0&.v=1&.pf=real-estate&mod=pf-real-estate

I sure am glad the private developers took the land from homeowners via eminent domain abuse so that they could do nothing with it. This is a prime example why only public projects should be considered for eminent domain.

9/25/2009 11:57:37 AM

Poetic justice for a reckless use of eminent domain.

Quote :

""If there had been no litigation, which took years to work its way through (the court system), then a substantial portion of this project would be constructed by now," said John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp. "But we are victims of the economic cycle, and there is nothing we can do about that.""

Just on a side note as a cost estimator, if you were going to eminent domain that much property to build such a site, you better build in literally years of schedule buffer to absorb all the legal battles to acquire the necessary property. It sounds more to me like an overly optimistic schedule built upon the assumption that the real estate boom of the late 1990s and earlier this decade was to have gone on forever.

9/25/2009 2:25:10 PM

I wish I could take some joy in this but the overriding precedent prohibits that

9/25/2009 2:53:26 PM

^^ I love that quote. The guy is basically saying "if we had been able to ignore the Constitution sooner, things would have been better." he has no fucking clue that what he did was 100% wrong and immoral. Yes, immoral.

I think every single Justice who voted for that decision should be disbarred for life for completely failing to understand the Constitution.

9/25/2009 6:31:28 PM

That is always the correct way to respond if your side loses in court.

9/25/2009 6:38:14 PM

this isn't being bitter over losing an argument. Grow the fuck up. Every 9th grade civics class was taught that eminent domain was only to be used for public projects. Apparently the justices on the Supreme Court skipped that day in class

9/25/2009 6:45:33 PM

or maybe they reinterpreted the constitution as they're tasked with doing. i don't particularly agree with the decision, but to say that it's not within the right of the supreme court to do it is asinine.

9/25/2009 9:39:39 PM

So, if they reinterpreted the Constitution to say that all black people should be exterminated, would you be OK with that? Don't hide behind that bullshit excuse

9/26/2009 3:33:23 PM

If the economy hadn't tanked, you probably wouldn't be reading about a barren wasteland. Private developers would have been able to exploit their ill-gotten property- stolen for them by the gov't.

I'd rather focus on the good that came from Kelo..how many state legislatures passed more protection for private property rights.

9/26/2009 10:49:50 PM

It won't matter. When the federal gov't is ready, it will just pass a law that says that states with such laws will lose highway money or something like that. You act like states have any rights nowadays

9/27/2009 2:41:59 PM