Kelo Vs. New London – Pfizer Utopia Gone Bad

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Pfizer has announced plans to close its Research and Development Headquarters in New London, Connecticut.  You know….the big revenue stream enhancer for which  Suzette Kelo lost her right to property for? The big deal with Pfizer to bribe the city to take peoples homes away in exchange for “alleged” tax revenue gains that go up in smoke now that Pfizer is walking away from first our Constitution and now their promises? You know, the whole sordid deal where the US Supreme Court sold out our freedom FOR NOTHING!!!!!

Thanks for nothing SCOUTUS!

Government loves to ignore individual liberty and rights in the name of “progress” or betterment of the “whole”. If they remembered that we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a mob-rule pure democracy, they would still understand that by stripping the individual of liberty they sap the foundation that protects the entire collective they claim to be helping/serving. We were ALL damaged by the farce of justice that was Kelo vs. New London.

In fact, as stated in the WSJ, the condemned and wrecked neighborhood stands vacant without any of the touted revenue improvements! Do you hear this Norfolk Housing & Redevelopment? Hear this Portsmouth “Crabshack” council? Are you paying attention Virginia Beach Council? Let’s hope VB is thinking twice before taking land for Towne Center/Light Rail for “development” and “Density Projects”. What if that density never shows up?

To New London, Connecticut:

Reap what you sow you freedom sucking parasitic bastards!

– Britt Howard


8 Responses to Kelo Vs. New London – Pfizer Utopia Gone Bad

  1. Citizen Tom says:

    Unfortunately, we have a Liberal Democrat in the White House, and we have a Liberal Democrat Congress. So if we do not take back Congress soon, we can expect more such decisions.

  2. Len Rothman says:

    Since that decision, 34 more states restricted or prohibited such takings for a total of 42 nationwide.

    Sometimes it takes an adverse decision to promulgate reform.

    It is unfortunate for Suzette Kelo to be sure. But then change never comes easy in this country.

    Think of how many workers were killed or maimed trying to establish the right to strike in the early part of the last century.

    Or how many civil rights workers were lynched or beaten in the 50’s and 60’s before all citizens were given the right to vote, go to school or drink from any fountain.

    Power is not surrendered easily, particularly when someone profits greatly from it.

  3. Britt Howard says:

    I agree with you Len. “The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance” and that sometimes it does takes great evil to motivate the masses to get off their damn butts and do anything about it. You are also right that there are victims in any war, revolution, or great struggle.

    I just hope more people are learning something from this recent incident. There was indeed a public outcry over the Kelo decision. That does offer hope that we’re not always too distracted by the antics of celebrity gossip.

    I am quite encouraged by the Tea Party movement as well.

    Humanity has made progress. I try my best to focus on that. Holding on to each past success on the many fronts, can help encourage us to keep trying.

    • Don Tabor says:

      The Kelo decision brings mixed emotions to me.

      In a way, I would have liked SCOTUS to have defined “public use” clearly, so we would have one standard nationwide to apply.

      But on the other hand, the decision was NOT that the Kelo taking was a good thing, but that defining “Public Use” was the proper task of the legislature. I am encouraged that many State legislatures have risen to that challenge.

      So, my anger at SCOTUS for not finding narrowly on public use is tempered by my respect for judicial restraint.

      Of course, my glee in seeing New London having this to come back and bite them in their pocketbook is unrestrained.

  4. Britt Howard says:

    I disagree that “Public Use” should be defined by the legislature. The right to be secure in your person and property is a natural right. There has to be an uber type reason for the government to have just cause to ask you to bend at all on your natural rights. Given that we are dealing with natural rights of the individual and compensation for forced damages/sales, it is the place of the judiciary to decide. The court should be charged to interpret the Constitution, determine what is such a dire need that you can be legally damaged, and if a victim was reasonably compensated after a reasonable taking.

    The last thing that I want is a legislature to write new law as whether taking my land to give to a private company for additional parking spaces is ok. They get bribed every election cycle by special interests with big bucks.

    In effect, SCOTUS said that if the states don’t object then economic development is a just reason for a taking. That is a travesty and opened giant gaping holes for the likes of Norfolk Redevlopment and Virginia Beach council to run all over our rights. It could be so loosely defined that political enemies could find their property condemned for the most pitiful and transparent excuses.

    That said, I am equally thankful that the state governments intervened. The Dillon Rule is also a great blessing. Of course, Pfizer giving the finger to New London after what they did, does give me an almost sadistic pleasure. Live by the sword…..die by the sword. It is poetic justice.

  5. guyfromchesapeake says:

    I’m wondering how much ’eminent domain’ may try to be applied with the light rail hysteria that is gripping many in our local govts as well as the local media clowns who champion it?

    Stay tuned…

  6. Len Rothman says:

    Agree or disagree with the value of public transportation versus expanding our roads, light rail would fall into the proper use of emminent domain as it is publicly funded and for the greater public good.

    It is the same as for roads and government buildings.

    The time to dispute such takings is in the approval process for the rail itself. But once such approval is given, then the government would be well within legal bounds to legally expropriate, with compensation, such properties as required for the right of ways.

    • guyfromchesapeake says:

      Well, I think that ‘greater public good’ is always the crux of the argument. Using eminent domain to advance a private concern, as has happened with locales that invoked it to allow for businesses/housing developments for supposed ‘increased tax revenues’ doesn’t pass either the smell or common sense tests. In light rail’s case especially (and this won’t be the venue to discuss it, I’ll just state the obvious) what all factors would constitute the ‘public good’? Just providing it? Can it be proven that it constitutes an ‘improvement’ to the areas involved, much like a dam can be shown to provide greater safety for a location by controlling potential floodwaters? Those are the questions that should have to be answered and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt for such decisions.

      But you are correct, if a public vote is held on it, all factors including the use of eminent domain have to be part of the discussions at that part of the process leading to the vote itself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: