New London Apparatchik's End Zone Dance: Scott Bullock Throws Flag

Tim Cavanaugh | June 30, 2005

Yesterday, New London Development Corporation COO David M. Goebel treated us to his own version of Rupert Pupkin's taunt "So long, suckers! Better luck next time!" Scott Bullock, the Institute for Justice attorney who represented the plaintiffs in Kelo vs. City of New London, responds:

Your headline "New London Apparatchik to Plaintiffs: Take It On the Arches and Get On With Your Lives Already!" concerning the email you received from David Goebel, says it all. Despite widespread outrage about the Supreme Court's decision and overwhelming support of the New London homeowners, Goebel, head of the New London Development Corporation and one of the leading architects of the ongoing debacle in New London, apparently still refuses to let the homeowners be. I suppose Mr. Goebel thinks that 87-year-old Mrs. Dery should also "get on with life" after he evicts her from the only home she has ever known. We will not deterred. We will do everything in our power to keep Mrs. Dery and her neighbors in their homes.

And, as usual, Mr. Goebel can't get his facts straight. What we have stated in numerous articles is that state supreme courts have ruled in nine states that eminent domain for private economic development is not permissible under the public use provision of their own state constitution. Now, do state and local officials, including attorneys general, not abide by their own state supreme court rulings? Absolutely! Local governments in Florida are an excellent example of that. But the court rulings in those states are there for anyone to see. Anyone wanting to check out the decisions and citations can look at the petition for certiorari we filed in the Supreme Court. Interestingly, rather than spending time actually doing development on land it already owns, it appears from Goebel's letter that the NLDC is instead spending its time contacting attorney general offices to try to defend an indefensible Supreme Court decision. I bet Connecticut taxpayers, who pay most of the NLDC's salaries, would be thrilled to know that.

For all readers who want to know about stopping eminent domain abuse in New London and elsewhere, please click here.

Comments

|6.30.05 @ 3:13PM|#

Mrs. Dery needs an armed militia exercising its 2nd Amendment rights to defend her property from an oppressive regime.

|6.30.05 @ 3:17PM|#

Uh-huh, really helped the Branch davidians didn't it?

|6.30.05 @ 3:19PM|#

Councillor Bullock, if you're reading this:

Will "doing everything in your power" include arguing that the contents in, or process behind, the Fort Trumball plan are so inadequate as to constitute a due process violation?

Will it include arguing that the plan should be reviewed using a "strict scrutiny" standard, because of its disparate impact upon the historically-oppressed group known as "low-income persons?" You know, like in the New Jersey affordable housing case?

|6.30.05 @ 4:22PM|#

Congress (Congress!!!) says, Not so fast, Goebbels!

MP|6.30.05 @ 4:46PM|#

I like the disingenuous quote from Rep. Obey:

"The idea that this House, every time we don't like a court decision, should decide that we're not going to allow federal money to be used to enforce that court decision is as nutty as the original court decision in the first place," Obey said. "So I would hope that we would recognize that the Founding Fathers created the system of separation of powers. They created three independent branches of government for a purpose."

Oh yeah, you mean like the way Congress constantly forces states in line (drinking age, anyone?) by threatening the purse strings? Personally, I think it is unconstitutional for Congress to legislate via the purse. But since SCOTUS is in the habit of deferring all responsibility in the name of the "democratic process", then f*ck it...I'm on board with this bill.

BTW, I've heard a lot of good things about Sen. John Cornyn lately. One to watch?

|6.30.05 @ 4:55PM|#

MP,

I prefer Pelosi's:

"This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution -- church and state as well."

Church and state? Really? Dumbass.

|6.30.05 @ 4:56PM|#

DeLay's quotes are idiotic, but I guess that's to be expected. He loves to trot out the "out of control judiciary" whenever he can. While I disagree with the decision, it wasn't as if the SCOTUS came up with the NLDC plan.

|6.30.05 @ 4:58PM|#

Baylen,

Sometimes you just have to shudder with fear that these people are our government. Sigh.

|6.30.05 @ 5:06PM|#

My bad. I can see from the IJ website that their plans do not include pursuing other promising avenues of legal appeal to prevent the New London takings.

|6.30.05 @ 11:49PM|#

He he he. Someone said "Santorum." He he.

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

|7.1.05 @ 9:01AM|#

How heartening and inspiring it is to know that it takes the majority opinion to be from the liberals on the bench in order to rouse the ire of the Republican congress. Hmmm, I wonder if DeLay would be as flustered over this if the majority opinion had come from his conservative pals. Come on, could you be ANY more transparent? DeLay couldn't give one drippy shit about "people". Nice try.

"This Congress is not going to just sit by -- idly sit by -- and let an unaccountable judiciary make these kinds of decisions without taking our responsibility and our duty given to us by the Constitution to be a check on the judiciary," he said during a rare appearance in the House Radio-Television Gallery.

Oh, well, Senator, where were you when that very same "unaccountable judiciary" ruled that the war on drugs is more important than terminally ill & dying people easing their pain, and that growing a plant in your own backyard for your own use is somehow "interstate commerce"? Jackass.

|7.1.05 @ 9:11AM|#

joe: i think at this point they hope to use the horror many quarters have felt towards kelo as a way of putting the issue on the map, because using the tools o the bureau trade can be countered more easily than legislation.

which may be a mistake, of course.