New London Apparatchik to Plaintiffs: Take It On the Arches and Get On With Your Lives Already!

Tim Cavanaugh | June 29, 2005

Mr. Cavanaugh:

I have seen a copy of the interview with Scott Bullock. It is disappointing that he will not respect the decision of the Supreme Court of the land. He has carried this case as far as it will go. He needs to let go and get on with life. He had his chance.

Also, one of the statistics he cited is in error. He said that there were 9 states that did not permit takings for economic development purposes. He has said that before in print, listing the states. Unfortunately, we have contacted those 9 states AG offices, and 7 responded. Each of those seven said that they permitted takings for economic purposes under some conditions. Mr. Bullock needs to tell the 'whole truth' when he is interviewed, and not half the truth. It gets very old after a while.

Thanks for listening (or reading).

David M. Goebel
COO, New London Development Corporation

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|6.29.05 @ 2:24PM|#

What's disappointing is that the Supreme Court of the land did not respect its employers.

Mr. Goebel, if you're reading this, might I ask which 7 of those 9 responded to your inquiry, and under what conditions they permit takings?

|6.29.05 @ 2:25PM|#

To continue:

I wish all you people with your ideas about "freedom" and "property rights" would just quit raising a fuss while we sodomize you.

I mean, geeze, public good, for the children, if it only saves one life, blah blah blah.

MP|6.29.05 @ 2:28PM|#

Hey Goebel, you shithead, just because SCOTUS has spoken, it does not mean we have run out of options for fighting this. In fact, there is a movement to change the law to prevent you and your scumbag developer friends from kicking these people out of their homes.

|6.29.05 @ 2:36PM|#

Sounds kind of weaselly - lots of takings involve economic development of some sort, but are readily distinguished from the New London takings.

Also, are we now referring to complaintants' lawyers as "plaintiffs?" Up till now, the convention on this site has been to assert that "lawyers" are suing people left and right.

|6.29.05 @ 2:49PM|#

How come nobody is hacking Goebel's website just for the hell of it?

Ian Rowan|6.29.05 @ 2:56PM|#

Mr. Goebel: You should add an "s" to your last name.

|6.29.05 @ 2:56PM|#

Can somebody please look into getting that nascent development firm seeking to turn Souter's house into a hotel to look into the possibility of plopping an aquarium or something on Herr Goebel's house plot?

Jesus H. Christ.

"At least eight states � Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington � forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050629/ap_on_re_us/souter_property

SB: [...] Thankfully, every state Constitution has prohibitions against private takings and a requirement that takings be for public use. And, only six states have held that economic development condemnations are Constitutional. Nine have held that they are not. And most states have not addressed it.

Ian Rowan|6.29.05 @ 2:59PM|#

David M. Goebel
(860) 447-8011, ext 14
davemg@nldc.org

|6.29.05 @ 3:00PM|#

The Supreme Court also handed down Dred Scott. I'm glad people didn't follow that "law of the land" either.

|6.29.05 @ 3:03PM|#

David Goebel,

First of all, I really have to say, what a classic name. Just add a 'b' and an 's' in the proper places and you'll have the name of an historical figure who probably would have agreed completely with your line of reasoning. Well, we can't all choose our parents, so I suppose we should be glad they didn't name you Joseph.

Perhaps if you were to exercise some minimal amount of empathy, you would see things differently, perhaps not. I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in the situation where you would have to give up an asset that you are emotionally attached to. It is a hard and painful process, and although I disagree strongly with your position with regard to the homeowners, wishing that on anyone is simply too emotionally draining.

Good day, sir.

Of course, we could just complain directly to Mr. Goebel and other members of the NLDC board directly -- after all, they list their contact information right here: http://www.nldc.org/contactus.htm

|6.29.05 @ 3:08PM|#

He needs to let go and get on with life. He had his chance.

What a fucking dick. I hope they bulldoze his house next.

Administrations come and go, David Goebel. You may be riding high on the kickback highway today, but when a new administration takes over, you might find yourself running for cover. Political wins are seldom permanent; but bigmouth fuckheads are long remembered.

David M. Goebel,

I am beginning to consider believing in a God just so that I will have something to wistfully pray to for your prompt and, hopefully, grisly demise.

May the forces of evil not become lost on the way to your house.

You know, I'd bet that Mr. Goebel's house just might happen to be on a prime piece of real estate for Economic Development�.

|6.29.05 @ 3:13PM|#

You know, The Lost Liberty Hotel could become a chain...

|6.29.05 @ 3:17PM|#

Allowing takings for some purposes is not the same as allowing takings for economic development, now is it?

TJIC|6.29.05 @ 3:18PM|#

Consider pledging to stay at the Lost Liberty Hotel:

http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel

The more pledges we get, the more evidence there is that taking Souter's house would be economically beneficial to the town.

|6.29.05 @ 3:23PM|#

Evan,

I can't believe that link was actual organization. Those newsletters are almost surreal.

|6.29.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Check this out this law professor said of Kelo at National Review http://www.nationalreview.com/adler/adler200506290806.asp

"Even accepting that the phrase �public use� places some limitation on the use of eminent domain, it is not clear what that limit is."

This, my friends, is why law school is so difficult. Law professors can parse the simplest of concepts into oblivion. If it wasn't meant to limit eminent domain, why the fuck would they put in there in the first place? They could have said "any" use or "public or private use."
And just because something can't be used by the public doesn't mean it doesn't somehow serve the public. You can't people lollygaggin on to artillery and bombing ranges dumbass. The whole point of a prison is estrangement FROM the public.

|6.29.05 @ 3:35PM|#

I appologize for not knowing how to use HTML tags.

|6.29.05 @ 3:48PM|#

I know it has been asked already, but is it theoretically possible for each New London eminent domain victim to go to their next door neighbor's house and hammer one nail somewhere and then place a mechanic's lien on the house? Each resident could do this and then submit an invoice for like a million dollars. The residents would each have a lien on each other's property that they have no incentive to collect, and the developers couldn't take the land until all the liens were paid off. If the developers really want the land, then they have to pay everybody fair market value plus 1 million to each "independent contractor".

|6.29.05 @ 3:52PM|#

dave_b,

Not just anybody can slap a lien on a house. It has to be done pursuant to a contract for hire, and the contractor has to be somebody who does that kind of work normally (so unless everybody in that neighborhood is some kind of home repair guy, they aren't going to be eligible to put a workman's lien or whatever they call it there).

And a lien can only be proportional to the fair value of the work; so the million dollars is out.

|6.29.05 @ 4:10PM|#

Let's look at the issue from another direction - have there ever been any cases in which a state, local, or federal government's taking has been ruled unconstitutional because it didn't meet the "public use" standard?

|6.29.05 @ 4:11PM|#

Oh, great. So now we don't have any states which protect private property. This doesn't make me feel worse about Mr. Bullock, this makes me feel worse about liberty in general.

|6.29.05 @ 4:12PM|#

Troy,

It all depends what "is" means.

If a lawyer thought he could make a buck at it, he'd argue that your dead great-great-grandmother was your still living niece.

Your granny is a 'female relative'
Your niece is a 'female relative'

Therefore, your great-great grandfather is a pedophile and your niece can sue you for all you've got.

It's quite obvious when you think about it.

Jake
(who's going to go wash his logic circuits with kerosene now)

|6.29.05 @ 4:13PM|#

independent worm,

I know it's just wishful thinking, but some states' laws were written before the advent of licensed contractors, so theoretically, according to the letter of the law, anyone who provides or supplies services for work or repair on a home could be entitled to put a mechanic's lien on the property. I don't, however, know what the law is in Connecticut. As far as the fair value issue, then submit an invoice for $1.00 or whatever the fair value is, because the developers would still have to wait until all the liens were resolved. I'm sure that they would try to buy and settle all the liens at a price of $1.00, but the "independent contractors" could refuse to take the money from anyone other than the person they did the work for.

|6.29.05 @ 4:18PM|#

Per the NLDC website, Goebel's email address is davemg@nldc.org their phone number is 860 447 8011

But he's a nice guy, really. "Thank you for your interest in PLTI NewLondon and your commitment to Putting Children First." (See Events on NLDC.org)

dave b, I think you'd see a judgment quieting title sooner than checks from the developer...

|6.29.05 @ 4:20PM|#

dave_b,

still not gonna work. It's not "licensed contractors" per se, but just anybody who's ordinary course of business it is. This is more general, and probably is the same in every state.

Anyway, a new buyer only takes subject to the lien; it won't hold up the sale. If the seller doesn't pay the lienor out of the proceeds of the sale, then the new owner can tender payment to clear up his title. If the lienor refuses payment, the owner can just go down to the courthouse and have the lien quashed.

A lien is really a pretty wimpy little power. It's purpose is to keep people who do work from getting stiffed by the people who hire them. No court in America is going to waste anybody's time upholding a lien that doesn't fit that profile. The "million dollar nail" is more than just wishful thinking; it is not an enforceable lien at all.

|6.29.05 @ 4:25PM|#

Goebel Goebel Goebel.

|6.29.05 @ 4:29PM|#

Still fighting the good fight on Kelo, and other abuses of eminent domain:

http://www.castlecoalition.org

|6.29.05 @ 4:40PM|#

According to the Christian Science Monitor, 2/3 of the public doesn't believe the government should be able to take land for a public use.

Does anyone here believe that this accurately reflects public opinion on the question of condemning land for roads, bridges, or fire stations?

|6.29.05 @ 4:56PM|#

I thought we were supposed to be more skeptical of newspapers run by weird religous groups. ;)

|6.29.05 @ 5:01PM|#

I will note that while Goebel may have been a trace snide, he was at least polite. He may be on the very wrong side of this issue, but common courtesy (and the desire not to look like the uncouth schmuck in the face of good manners) suggests we might not need be insulting at this point.

Just saying.

|6.29.05 @ 5:07PM|#

Eric the .5b - 'not need be insulting'; If I could get away with it, I'd rip his fucking nutsack off, leave alone being polite to him. Just because a thief is polite about it doesn't make it any better nor make him any more worthy of respect or common decency.
-Karl

|6.29.05 @ 5:16PM|#

Probably not, joe. It is more likely a reflection of the public view on the types of takings at issue in Kelo and the other, similar types of ED abuses that have received so much press in the last few weeks.

To which I would say, so what? I feel reasonably sure that the vast majority of the American public can draw a distinction between takings for a "real" public use (your "roads, bridges, or fire stations") and those for a spurious public use (enhanced tax base, redevelopment of "blighted" areas that are anything but). It's the municipal governments looking for a silver-bullet cure for tax shortfalls (and of course those five jurists) that apparently cannot.

|6.29.05 @ 5:17PM|#

Joe: The Poletown decision was recently reversed (23 yrs after the fact) by the Michigan Supreme Court due to the use of the land as a Gerneral Motors auto factory not being actual public use.

They ruled that the takings violated Michigan's 1963 constitution.

The Trump case (CRDA v Coking), on the other hand, was decided on a technicality - the judge found that nothing in the deal between Trump and the CRDA guaranteed that the land would be used for its stated "public use" - a private parking lot for Trump's hotel/casino.

|6.29.05 @ 5:18PM|#

Karl,

Monkey Steals the Peach might be overkill. He's a statist, he doesn't know any better.

|6.29.05 @ 5:19PM|#

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost....

When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple. He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus... And laid it in his own new tomb...

Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, 'He is risen from the dead' so the last error shall be worse than the first."

Pilate said unto them, "Jesus Christ! It is disappointing that his followers will not respect the decision of the supreme court of this land. He has carried this case as far as it will go. He needs to let go and get on with life. He had his chance."

And on the third day, Jesus rose ...

|6.29.05 @ 5:34PM|#

Eric - Perhaps a bit too far; just trying to give him his god given right to testicular lebensruam.

More seriously, I undertand the need to be polite in discourse. But polite people who are really nice to their families and neighbors and who are doing the best for the communtiy oftentimes end up doing some really horrible things. When the horrible-ness of their actions are pointed out to them and they respond with 'get on with your life'... I think they've gone well past the point of polite discourse.
-K

|6.29.05 @ 5:39PM|#

joe

I think it depends on how the question is phrased.

Many people have an aversion to ED on principle. Juries in condemnation cases are notoriously sympathetic to owners, often tripling or quadrupling prices. But when faced with a specific case, a road widening, a school (it's for the children, you know), fire station etc it's different. I think they are hostile to the Kelo type of project and may have reacted this way because of the current noteriety of this case.

The respondents may have taken "the government should be able to take land for a public use" literally (note emphasis on take).

Contrary to popular belief governments rarely offer less than "market value" (based on conventional appraisal methods) for properties, and if they do it is the result of an error. Further (in Florida, at any rate, but apparently nor in CT) if an owner contests a taking the state pays all his legal fees. However many people believe that gov'ts "steal" property on a regular basis. The "theft" occurs when private interests benefit without having to undertake the often difficult task of assembling a large parcel from many often reluctant sellers*.

Offers are often quite generous. The rub is when there are other than strictly economic factors. How do you compensate an 87-year-old woman for the loss of the only house she has ever lived in.

*This is in fact possible. Disney purchased over 25,000 acres from hundreds of owners in Fla in the 60s.

|6.29.05 @ 5:42PM|#

Also, what Cgee [said] at June 29, 2005 05:16 PM while I was typing my post.

|6.29.05 @ 6:13PM|#

Eric - Perhaps a bit too far; just trying to give him his god given right to testicular lebensruam.

Maybe just a bit. :) Boxers usually do, I'm told.

When the horrible-ness of their actions are pointed out to them and they respond with 'get on with your life'... I think they've gone well past the point of polite discourse.

Sometimes, I'll agree.

|6.29.05 @ 6:44PM|#

Keep the email campaign going! As posted before:

Goebel's email address is

davemg@nldc.org

The NLDC phone number is 860 447 8011

Again, so you don't miss it:

Goebel's email address is

davemg@nldc.org

Goebel's email address is

davemg@nldc.org

I've emailed him, have you?

|6.29.05 @ 10:31PM|#

I agree, cgee, those results are more likely the result of aversion to the facts of the Kelo case than a thought-out statement of policy.

Also with Isaac, about the wording.

I am aware of the Poletown case, Pedro. That was reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court, IIRC, which is interpretting a different constitution than the SCOTUS.

|6.30.05 @ 12:34AM|#

One thing I'd like to see more of is some unanimity from the SCOTUS. They have long ceased to work at forming a consensus, in favor of writing loads of dissents and partial concurrence. If the SCOTUS comes in 5-4 all the time, how is that really anything more than yet another case of "tyrrany of the majority"?

Rather than just having one swing vote switch sides all the time, how about they hammer out some real principles, fully considering for one type of example, a balance of states' rights vs individual freedoms? Instead of the minority always playing up one side whie ignoring another and washing their hands like a bunch of fucking Pilates? And the same of the majority -- simply resting an opinion on one axis and pretending like the other doesn't exist, or only giving the other side short shrift when it doesn't fit a preconceived political worldview (Scalia, i'm looking your way here)?

I could be way off base here... but dag gone, it seems like SCOTUS opinions used to be a lot more of a majority than they are now. If the SCOTUS is sitting there 5-4 all the time, why the hell should most of us respect the fact that one more SCOTUS justice voted FOR something than against it?; knowing as we do that if there was an evangelical church or abortion clinic or black history museum or gun shop sitting on the property at issue that a given decision probably would have gone a different way on the vote of a slightly differntly-allocated 5-4 vote?

Jadagul|6.30.05 @ 1:32AM|#

Oh, come on. Write to him in his role as councilman-disagree with him-but don't harass the guy. If nothing else, it's completely unproductive.

|6.30.05 @ 11:57AM|#

Agreed. I've just deleted two messages above. Contacting a public official at his office e-mail to express displeasure with a policy is a great idea. Calling to harass him at home is not, and the H&R comments will not be a staging ground for a harassement campaign.

|6.30.05 @ 12:35PM|#

Joe, I believe (though I can't give you cites at the moment) that federal/state public use clauses have been enforced occasionally to prevent fraudulent takings that were basically a method by which a govt. official gave land to himself or a relative or some such. But there isn't a lot of case law on the subject, either way, in comparison to the mountain of inverse condemnation decisions that have been issued over the years.

|6.30.05 @ 1:09PM|#

There is an easy way to overcome the idiotic SCOTUS decision. Elect people at the stae and local level oppossed to ecomonic ED.

|6.30.05 @ 1:23PM|#

Julian - Re: Harrasing at home a bad idea. Is the resoning that it's counterproductive, or that it's wrong? I'm genuinely a bit torn here - doing something like that seems.... gauche, to say the least. On the other hand, Goebels has fronted an effort to physically *remove* somebody from their home; is harrasing him at *his* home really beyond the pale? I seem to recall some words written by some guy some two hundred odd years ago about 'the tree of liberty' and 'blood of tyrants' or some such. If we're not willing (I'll include myself in that number, being all talk in this case) to go to the relatively tame level of *harrassing* a tyrant, are we really that serious about defending individual liberty? Serious question. When does it become too much?
-Karl

jake -- it's easy to find aspiring politicians who will willingly cede some of their government's power once they take office?

|6.30.05 @ 5:44PM|#

Calling to harass him at home is not, and the H&R comments will not be a staging ground for a harassement campaign.

Does that mean you won't go out with me? :)

|6.30.05 @ 8:01PM|#

The defeat in Kelo and the victory in Poletown point to the proper strategy: strengthen state statutes, or even pass state constitutional amendments, that define "public use" strictly for the purposes of ED cases. If local councilmen, planning officials or zoning board members don't have the power to take property for the wider view of "public purposes", then they won't be able to act as a conduit for transferring the land from its original owners to new ones who have - or have purchased - political pull.

Making sure that public notice and appeals procedures are citizen-friendly would be smart, too.

Kevin

Mark Bahner|6.30.05 @ 9:57PM|#

"The defeat in Kelo and the victory in Poletown point to the proper strategy: strengthen state statutes, or even pass state constitutional amendments,.."

I think an even better strategy would be to take the house of every Supreme Court judge who voted with the majority in Kelo:

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Jeff|7.1.05 @ 11:21PM|#

Regarding the deleted posts above, I simply linked to a Google search that I ran that exposes some personal information regarding our antagonist. I guess I intended it more as a commentary on the information out there rather than as an invitation for harassment!

I forget sometimes about the L.C.D phenomenon so prevalent on these internets.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements