Evictions Ordered Following Supreme Court's 'Kelo' Ruling

I couldn't believe it when the Supreme Court ruled on this last year. Of all the things they have "interpreted” incorrectly, I cannot think of any other reason for a rational person to interpret this law in this way, unless they had a political agenda. This ruling needs to be reversed as soon as possible.

(CNSNews.com) - The heavily criticized U.S. Supreme Court decision from June 2005 - allowing governments to seize private property for the financial benefit of the community as a whole -- is still having ramifications. New London, Conn., city officials voted Monday to evict two residents who refused to give up their homes in a Fort Trumbull neighborhood.
The city council voted 5-2 to evict homeowners Pasquale Cristofaro and Susette Kelo from their riverfront homes. The motion instructed city Law Director Thomas Londregan to proceed with the process of obtaining the properties and to "obtain past due taxes and rents collected from third parties and/or reasonable use and occupancy fees."
The city, suffering from a decreasing tax base and population, created a development plan for property in Fort Trumbull in 2000 that included construction of a hotel, convention center and various research, office and retail sites.
Seven property owners refused to sell the property to the city. The case went to the Supreme Court, which, in Kelo v. City of New London, ruled 5-4 that the government may seize the home, small business or other private property of one citizen and transfer it to another entity if the transfer would boost the community's economic development and its tax base.
Since the ruling, five of the seven plaintiffs agreed to sell. Bill Von Winkle, who owns three houses with 12 apartments in the neighborhood, reached a settlement Monday shortly before the meeting began.

-snip-

Michael Cristofaro, son of Pasquale Cristofaro, said his family would not settle with the city.
"If you want to see an 81-year-old man who loves this country and has never been arrested be handcuffed and hauled away along with every member of the Cristofaro family, continue along the path you are going," Cristofaro said. "We won't be leaving."
Charles Frink was one of the two council members who voted against the plan.
"I can't accept a possible reduction in taxes by having neighbors thrown out of their property," Frink said. "This is morally abhorrent to me. I refuse to profit from my neighbor's pain."
Bullock said the residents will continue to explore their options.
"We're going to be discussing and meeting with the remaining homeowners and looking at all the options we have available ... from other avenues with the state up to and including civil disobedience, if it comes to it," he said.

Read more here.