A New (London) Low
Aug. 17th, 2005 21:44![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
torquillEveryone's heard about the Supreme Court case which allowed New London, CT to seize private property under eminent domain if it was done to battle "blight". Now I discover that there's icing on the cake.
New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent.
Gosh darn it, taking these people's houses away isn't good enough. Okay, we'll buy the property at market value as law requires; we only have to pay market rates from 2000, since that's when the lawsuit started. But look, we can claim rent for those five years, at the going rate, and make back all that money we're using to buy the houses! That leaves these nasty obstructionist homeowners without houses and without money to buy any, what a shame...
New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent.
Gosh darn it, taking these people's houses away isn't good enough. Okay, we'll buy the property at market value as law requires; we only have to pay market rates from 2000, since that's when the lawsuit started. But look, we can claim rent for those five years, at the going rate, and make back all that money we're using to buy the houses! That leaves these nasty obstructionist homeowners without houses and without money to buy any, what a shame...
