News & Developments

The End of Kelo—Pfizer Abandons the New London Project

In the late 1990s, the city of New London, Connecticut, looked to Pfizer to build a new research and development facility, as the key to a massive urban renewal and an economic boost to the city’s aging Fort Trumball area.

That’s where Suzette Kelo’s little pink house stood. Her desire to not sell her home resulted in the controversial decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing a state to define public use so as to include such economic rejuvenation projects, and resulted in Suzette’s home, along with many others, being acquired and removed. See Kelo v. City of New London. Ms. Kelo’s home was eventually acquired by the city, and sold to Pfizer as part of a 24-acre parcel, all for $10.

Now, after merging with Wyeth, Pfizer has announced it will close its facility in New London, shutter the building, and take 1,400 jobs elsewhere. The Fort Trumbull area where the pink house stood? There is very little to show for all the effort other than weeds and scattered demolition rubble.

It is reported by the Institute for Justice that 43 states have now reformed their eminent domain law to limit its use for economic gain.

Walton County v. Stop the Beach Front Re-nourishment, Inc.

998 So.2d 1102 (Florida 2008)

Supreme Court to Decide Whether a State Court’s Decision to Change Property Rights Law Constitutes a Taking

In Walton County v. Stop the Beach Front Re-nourishment, Inc., 998 So.2d 1102 (Florida 2008), the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a state statute prohibiting beach re-nourishment without a permit was not a taking of beachfront property. The Florida court claimed to be correcting errors in prior decisions, discovering that private property is subject to a public trust. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the state’s Beach Ensure Preservation Act properly seeks a careful balance between the interests of the public and the interests of the private land owners, and effectuates the state’s constitutional duty to protect Florida’s beaches. Two justices dissented, one arguing that the act could be saved only by payment of just compensation. The other dissenting justice argued that the majority had “butchered” Florida law, manipulated the question to be answered, and based its opinion upon “infirm, tortured logic and the rescission of existing precedent under a hollow claim,” and “simply erased well-established Florida law without proper analysis.”

This is interesting reading.

» View the Case | 

Following the Walton County decision, the case of Stop the Beach Front Re-nourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dept’s. of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (Cert. Granted, June 15, 2009) was filed to seek a determination that the decision of the Florida court constitutes a judicial taking. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 15, 2009. Numerous amicus curiae briefs have been filed.

» Read More  | 

Village Apologizes for Violating Property Owner’s Constitutional Rights

The village of Port Chester, New York, has issued a formal apology to a local businessman, after engaging in a nine-year eminent domain battle in which the owner had claimed the village took his property to make way for a private development project. As part of a settlement, the village announced that it “sincerely apologizes . . . and regrets the hardship it has caused.”