More: Kelo v City of New London
Now it’s getting really bad. WorldNetDaily reports that since New London won the case, they’re now expecting back rent from the losing parties, to the tune of $57,000 for the case’s namesake, Susette Kelo. “I’d leave here broke,” Kelo said. “I wouldn’t have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge.”
USAToday weighs in with an editorial as well.
The other catch is that the city is saying the purchase offers from 2001 still stand—at 2001 prices, without being adjusted for market increases over the last 4 years!
I wonder what Connecticut state law says about property owners paying utilities? Could Kelo et al sue the city for the costs of maintaining the city’s property? New London is saying that the losing parties have been living on city-owned property for the last 4 years. I think that’s a dangerous precedent to push. If that’s the case, and they’ve made no attempt to collect rent for 4 years, it could be argued that they’ve abandoned any claim to the property. At any rate, I think the “former” owners, or “renters” deserve to be reimbursed by they city for all the work they’ve done in the last 4 years to maintain city-owned property. And what about utilities? How was that addressed in the lease agreement? Surely the city signed a lease agreement with their renters. Didn’t they?
Powered by MightyAdsense
Related Posts
comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.