Saving the Skin of Property Owners In Connecticut: New London Residents Fight Eminent Domain Abuse

Institute For Justice, Litigation Backgrounder

“Anything that’s working in our great nation is working because somebody left skin on the sidewalk.” - Claire Gaudiani, New London Development Corporation

Introduction

From her dining room window on a clear day, Susette Kelo can see Montauk Point at the tip of Long Island.  In July 1997, she purchased her well-maintained, two-bedroom, pink house along the Thames River, a beautiful stretch of waterfront property in New London, Connecticut.  The neighborhood she moved into is called Fort Trumbull, an historic neighborhood that was once largely made up of Italian immigrants, but over the years has become more diverse while maintaining long-standing traditions and roots.  In fact, right up the street from Susette is the Dery family, who has lived in Fort Trumbull since 1895.  Matt Dery and his family live right next door to his mother and father, whose parents purchased that house in 1901.  The Derys liked the neighborhood so much that they bought two more houses and now rent them out. 

Around the corner from the Derys is the Fort Trumbull Deli, whose motto is “What a Sandwich!”  The Deli, owned by Bill Von Winkle and his wife, has served oversized hoagies to eager customers five days a week since 1986.  Bill also owns some rental properties above the Deli and attached to it.  If you turn right from the Deli, you encounter homes that reflect the neighborhood’s ethnic Italian origin, such as the Cristofaro family home.  Susette has other good neighbors as well: Byron Athenian, who also lives in a family house, and whose small auto body shop is right next door; and the Guretsky family who own a triplex property.  Jim Guretsky, his wife and their two young daughters live in one home and rent out the two other homes attached to theirs, often to Coast Guard personnel assigned to New London.  Also in the neighborhood are two houses owned by Richard Beyer, who saw promise in the neighborhood and bought the properties back in 1994 to spruce up and rent out.

To Susette, this is the perfect neighborhood.  But if the City of New London gets its way, she and all of her neighbors will have to leave.  Why?  In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next door to Fort Trumbull and the City determined that someone else could make better use of the land than Susette and the other residents of Fort Trumbull.  So the city wants to condemn these properties not for a public use, such as a road or a public school, but for “economic redevelopment.”  The new development, consisting of a hotel, high-income new housing, a health club, and office space, will supposedly enhance the new Pfizer facility.  In September 2000, the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation named the nine-acre Fort Trumbull neighborhood as one of the most threatened historic places in Connecticut.[1][1] 

Even worse for Fort Trumbull residents, the City transferred its awesome power of eminent domain to a private body, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC). 

This body, headed by Claire Gaudiani, former president of Connecticut College, now makes all the decisions on redevelopment in Fort Trumbull, including how and when to trigger the use of eminent domain against homes and businesses.  The NLDC wants some of the homes and businesses for the proposed health club while others are slated for yet-unknown development projects.  The NLDC wants to forcibly acquire this land through eminent domain, evict the residents, bulldoze the properties, and then market them to a developer -- hardly a public use.  Gaudiani justifies her actions by claiming that “anything that’s working in our great nation is working because somebody left skin on the sidewalk.”[2][2]

On December 20, 2000, the Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit to try to save the home of Susette and the properties of her neighbors from the abusive actions of the City of New London and the NLDC. 

The suit seeks to stop the eminent domain proceedings and to ensure that Fort Trumbull home and business owners can hold onto their property and stay in their neighborhood. 

The lawsuit is part of the Institute’s nationwide campaign to stop eminent domain abuse -- the unethical and unconstitutional marriage of convenience between developers and government that seeks to take privately owned land for another’s economic benefit, not for a public use.    

Eminent Domain:  How It Works, How It Is Abused

Eminent domain is the power of government to take away a person’s home or business.  It has rightly been called a “despotic” power of government.  Because of the vast potential for abuse of such a serious and drastic power, the Connecticut and United States constitutions state that private property shall not be “taken for public use without just compensation.”[3][3]  This constitutional provision imposes two important limits on the taking of private property:  first, that the use must be public, and second, that just compensation must be paid.  If private property could be taken for any use at all, the term “public” would not have been included. 

Originally, “public use” was understood by everyone -- courts, local governments, and the general citizenry -- to have its ordinary meaning, and eminent domain was intended only for projects that would be owned by and open to the public, such as to construct public works, like roads and water systems, and to erect public buildings, such as post offices.  Courts further explained that government was limited to taking only that property “necessary” for the public use.  It could not simply grab additional land to increase its holdings. 

Gradually, though, government has come to ignore these limits.  Now, local governments take individuals’ private property and give it to other more politically powerful private parties for their economic profit, not for a public use.  After a private entity or developer identifies the parcels of land it wants to acquire and city agencies approve a “redevelopment project,” the city attempts to confiscate these private properties and transfer them to the developer.  At the same time, governments give less and less consideration to the necessity of taking property for whatever project is planned.  They also ignore the personal values of home and business ownership to the individuals being evicted.  

Courts, instead of acting as a check on these abuses of government power, have significantly abdicated their role and often simply defer to whatever claims of “public purpose” a legislature or administrative agency makes, no matter how attenuated.  With a strong economic incentive and little judicial check on the use of eminent domain, in the eyes of state and local agencies, all the benefits weigh in favor of using government power to condemn private property and evict the rightful owners.

The erosion of the doctrine of eminent domain has led to predictably appalling results. 

In 1981, Detroit destroyed Poletown, the last racially integrated neighborhood in the city, and gave the property to General Motors to build a plant.[4][4] 

The closely-knit community could not be replaced, and the plant did not live up to its promise of bringing economic prosperity to the city.[5][5] 

Likewise, when the city of Oakland, California, decided that it didn’t want the Raiders football team to move to Los Angeles, it tried to exercise eminent domain, take ownership of the team and force them to stay.[6][6] 

And in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Hawaii to engage in a wholesale transfer of the land from owners to renters.[7][7]

 Condemnations for private parties occur throughout the United States, with new condemnations happening all the time. In Richfield, Minnesota, a car dealership is being threatened to make way for a new headquarters for the Best Buy electronics chain.[8][8] 

And outside of Cincinnati, the city of Norwood wants to condemn a number of small businesses so that a nearby Walgreens can move its current store to a new corner one block away.[9][9]

But a growing grassroots rebellion is also underway against abusive eminent domain actions. 

In Baltimore County, Maryland, legislation that expanded the power of eminent domain beyond its constitutional limits provoked a revolt by concerned property owners and citizen activists who placed a referendum on the November 2000 ballot to eliminate the power.[10][10] 

The expanded eminent domain power was defeated at the ballot box by a 70 to 30 percent vote.[11][11] 

In November 2000, Pittsburgh residents joined by the Institute for Justice defeated a proposal to demolish about one-fifth of the downtown area and displace over 120 businesses so the city could give the land to a developer to build an urban shopping mall.[12][12] 

Also, citizens in New Rochelle, New York, are actively fighting an effort by the city government to condemn an entire neighborhood to make way for an IKEA department store.[13][13]

How Government Makes a Profit From Condemning Your Property

Although it does not directly prevent condemnation of property, the requirement that the owner receive “just compensation,” until recently, served as a restraint upon the use of eminent domain.  Government would have to balance the cost of property acquisition and the cost of the eminent domain process itself against other possible uses of taxpayer dollars.  When government condemns private property for the use of private developers, however, those financial constraints are removed.[14][14]

In private condemnations, the typical agreement between the government and the developer is that the developer will pay all costs of acquisition, including legal fees.  This is a good financial deal for the developer because “just compensation” under eminent domain invariably is less than what the developer would have to pay on the open market.  And the owner can be forced to move, so there’s no problem with owners who refuse.  The government also gets a good deal.  It doesn’t have to pay for anything.  The developer pays for the property, the attorneys’ fees, and any studies that are necessary to get approval for the project. 

In addition to the removal of the financial disincentives that prevented much of the excessive use of eminent domain, there are often direct incentives for condemnation.  Designating an area and project for redevelopment makes a municipality eligible for additional funding from the state and often the federal government.[15][15]  

Another increasingly common incentive is Tax Increment Financing (TIF).[16][16] 

When a locality approves a redevelopment project, it gets a certain amount of the property taxes generated in the area, instead of those dollars going to the state treasury. 

Thus, the larger the area designated and the more projects approved, the greater the TIF income.[17][17] 

Developers get the land, governments get the taxes, and property owners get the boot. 

Some governments use even more offensive funding systems. 

For example, the Southwestern Illinois Development Authority actually charges a six percent commission fee for its services in forcibly acquiring property for private parties. 

In one case, now before the Illinois Supreme Court, the agency (Southwestern Illinois Development Authority) made more than $50,000 off a single condemnation.[18][18]

Coveting Thy Neighbor’s Goods in New London

In early 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced that it was going to build a $270 million dollar research facility in New London.[19][19]  Pfizer bought the land along the Thames River from the state for $10.  The company and other development groups associated with the project are slated to receive at least $118.2 million in federal and state subsidies over 13 years.  The Pfizer plant, which is expected to be complete in 2001, borders a well-established ethnic (historically Italian, now more diverse) neighborhood called Fort Trumbull. 

The neighborhood is also along a scenic stretch of waterfront property connected to Fort Trumbull state park and the former Naval Underwater Warfare Center (NUWC). 

In January 2000, the New London City Council approved a Municipal Redevelopment Plan for the 29-acre Fort Trumbull neighborhood.  More than half of the area consists of the NUWC, which the Navy closed, and that is now sitting vacant.  The NUWC site will be turned over to the City for redevelopment. 

The remainder of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, however, consists of privately-owned commercial and residential structures. 

The intent of the City of New London is to acquire all of these properties either through negotiation or eminent domain, for the building of a hotel, an athletic club, offices, high-income private housing, and other unspecified development projects supposedly to enhance the Pfizer plant.  In fact, in December 2000, Pfizer guaranteed a $2 million dollar line of credit from Webster Back of Waterbury, Connecticut for use as working capital for the development group implementing the city’ plan.[20][20]  The group that developed the plan and that is the beneficiary of Pfizer’s largesse is the New London Development Corporation. 

Private Parties With Government Powers:  The Role of the NLDC in Eminent Domain

“More jobs. More homeowners. More trees. Social justice.”  - from the website of the NLDC http://www.nldc.org

When it comes to goals, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private organization claiming to focus on the economic and community redevelopment of New London, aims pretty high.  It describes itself as a “proactive force working to enhance the quality of life for all residents of the region.”[21][21] 

The New London City Council solicited the NLDC to create the current redevelopment plan for the Fort Trumbull neighborhood.  Once the plan was complete, the City Council in January 2000 voted to approve the plan. 

But the City Council did not stop there. 

It then proceeded to delegate its authority over the project, including its eminent domain power, to the NLDC. 

When the property owners in Fort Trumbull are served eminent domain papers, they read that the “City of New London, acting by the New London Development Corporation” seeks their home or business.  The NLDC decides which properties must be taken and demolished and when the properties will go.  It also makes the ultimate determination on which developer will build the proposed projects.  Currently, the NLDC has not finalized plans for a developer, but seeks to bring aboard Boston contractor Corcoran Jennison soon to carry out most of the development project.[22][22]

The NLDC is headed by the former president of Connecticut College in New London, Claire Gaudiani.  The NLDC, under Gaudiani, claims that its overall goal is the promotion of “social justice.”  Indeed, the quote greeting visitors to the NLDC website reads: “Economic Prosperity and Social Justice Are Two Sides of the Same Coin.”[23][23] 

The New London City Council authorized the NLDC to use eminent domain to force Fort Trumbull residents to give up their homes and businesses.  It claims that it is a “proactive force” working to enhance the quality of life of New London residents. 

The irony is almost too much for New London residents to bear. 

The same NLDC that initiated another project, ‘House New London’ -- a venture aimed at increasing the homeownership rate in targeted New London areas -- now seeks to eject long-time Fort Trumbull homeowners from their houses. 

As Fred Paxton, a history professor at Connecticut College where Gaudiani was president, observed, "You don't tear down people's homes for social justice and the liberal arts-tradition."[24][24] 

Indeed, 78 of 105 tenured faculty at the college asked for -- and eventually received -- Gaudiani's resignation.

But the New London City Council authorized the Gaudiani-led NLDC to use eminent domain to force Fort Trumbull residents to give up their homes and businesses.  The NLDC remains unapologetic about the use of eminent domain to accomplish its redevelopment plan.  As Gaudiani said in a speech to higher education and civic leaders justifying the NLDC’s actions in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood: “Anything that’s working in our great nation is working because somebody left skin on the sidewalk.”[25][25] 

Thus, according to the Gaudiani, the home and business owners must be sacrificed for the supposed greater good of the community. 

Moreover, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Gaudiani, in a speech to a New London Baptist church on Martin Luther King Day, likened her leadership of the redevelopment group [NLDC] to the work toward social justice carried out by Jesus and Martin Luther King. 

Like them, she said, “I’m operating outside my specialty.  Does this mean I’m going to make mistakes? Yes.” 

But she urged the congregation to support her work.

“Jesus is calling us in this city to witness,” she said. 

“You and I are called to be transforming interveners, like Messiah, like Martin Luther King.”[26][26]

Under Gaudiani, the NLDC has certainly transformed the Fort Trumbull neighborhood.  Some of the property owners in Fort Trumbull wanted to sell their property and move; others felt like they had no choice and surrendered their homes or businesses. 

Once obtaining these properties, the NLDC moved swiftly to demolish the structures. 

Currently, however, a group of seven property owners who own [a total of] 15 parcels do not wish to sell and have refused any offers on the property. 

The NLDC, acting with the City’s eminent domain power, has served or will serve eminent domain papers on these remaining property owners. 

Most of the remaining property owners were served eminent domain papers in November and December 2000, with some being served on the day before Thanksgiving. 

The NLDC has informed some of the remaining property owners that they have until February 2001, others until March, to leave their homes and businesses and turn them over to the NLDC.   

Although the NLDC has yet to sign development deals for the area, no uncertainty exists as to its plans for the remaining properties. 

The NLDC wants to acquire the land as soon as possible and demolish every structure to more easily market the land to developers. 

The property owners challenging eminent domain are not against redevelopment of the area, but want to stay in their homes or businesses and wish to remain where they are. 

In fact, the property owners would like to be extended the same privilege granted the Italian Dramatic Club, a social club often used by and popular with politically powerful individuals and located in the exact same neighborhood as the property owners fighting the condemnations. 

The club was informed in September 2000 that it could remain in the neighborhood.[27][27] 

The NLDC, however, has refused to spare any of the other privately owned properties in the area.     

Three of the property owners in the lawsuit have homes and businesses in so-called Parcel 3 of the redevelopment area. 

That parcel is slated for redevelopment as an athletic club and as office space. 

Four of the property owners live in Parcel 4A of the project. 

It is not certain what projects will go in that section. 

The NLDC claims that it has received interest from the U.S. Coast Guard to build a museum in the location, but no deal is even close to being complete with it or any other redeveloper. 

The NLDC simply wants to acquire the land, bulldoze the homes and businesses, and then sell it to developers.  

Litigation Strategy

The Institute for Justice is committed to litigation that will restore judicial protection of private property rights -- the basic rights of every American to responsibly use and enjoy their property.  On December 20, 2000, the Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit in Superior Court in New London, Connecticut, challenging the City of New London and the New London Development Corporation’s unconstitutional and illegal eminent domain proceedings on behalf of seven property owners in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. 

The lawsuit asks the court to declare both the City’s and NLDC’s actions in these matters unconstitutional and unlawful. 

It also seeks an injunction from the court prohibiting the eminent domain proceedings from moving forward, thereby enabling the property owners to hold onto their homes and businesses.  The defendants in the lawsuit are the City of New London, the New London Development Corporation, and the New London Development Agency. 

As the Supreme Court stated, “Individual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights.”[28][28]  The choices people make regarding their homes or business are among the most personal and important decisions they will ever make.  When government exercises eminent domain, it can take someone’s home or livelihood, exacting enormous personal costs.  The Institute is especially concerned with the way that government actions affect those who have relatively limited economic means to defend themselves against such outrages. 

The Institute for Justice works to restore substance to the constitutional requirement that property can only be taken for public use, not for the benefit of private parties. 

In 1998, the Institute successfully defended Vera Coking, an elderly widow from Atlantic City, New Jersey, against the attempts by a New Jersey state agency to condemn her house of more than 35 years for Donald Trump’s casino across the street.[29][29] 

The Institute also successfully spearheaded a campaign against eminent domain abuse in downtown Pittsburgh, where the city mayor proposed taking more than 60 buildings and 120 privately owned businesses to give the property to a developer to build an urban shopping mall. 

In November 2000, the mayor abandoned his plans and pledged not to use eminent domain in future efforts to develop the area.[30][30] 

In October 2000, the Institute also filed a lawsuit in federal district court in New York challenging New York’s unconstitutional eminent domain procedures and asking for an injunction to prevent the condemnations of business properties and a church. 

The government’s and the NLDC’s attempts to take the Fort Trumbull properties violate the Connecticut and U.S. constitutions. 

First, taking property from one person to give to another private party is not a “public” use. 

As the Connecticut Supreme Court has held: “no definition of public use for the purpose of eminent domain can be large enough to include any private use, and, however elastic and indefinite the term ‘public use’ may be, it is certain that no additional or novel application of the power of eminent domain can justify the taking of property for a private use.”[31][31]  And even though the definition of public use in Connecticut and elsewhere has been expanded, the definition may not yet be so “elastic” to include taking homes and businesses for a health club. 

Government cannot take property, the primary effect of which will be for a private gain. 

Moreover, property owners at the very least should be able to demonstrate whether or not the taking of their property is primarily for a public purpose or a private gain.  Property owners in Parcel 4A are not even afforded that opportunity. 

The City and the NLDC want to condemn and bulldoze now, and then close development deals later, after it is too late for the property owners to determine whether the takings satisfied constitutional requirements.  This process defies Connecticut court rulings, which clearly state that “[a]uthority to take property by eminent domain will be strictly construed in favor of the owner and against the condemner.”[32][32]     

Governments cannot treat similarly situated people differently without compelling justification. 

By permitting one property owner in the neighborhood (the Italian Dramatic Club) to retain its property -- while denying the ability of other owners to keep their property -- the City and the NLDC violates the equal protection guarantee of the Connecticut and U.S. Constitutions. 

Moreover, the due process clauses of the U.S. and state constitutions guarantee that individuals may not be deprived of their property without due process of law. 

The actions of the City and the NLDC throughout this controversy, including disparate treatment of property owners and the desire to take the property and demolish the home without even a developer in place constitutes unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious conduct in violation of the due process clauses.           

Moreover, the City of New London has unconstitutionally delegated its condemnation power to private parties -- the NLDC -- that will then further delegate decision making on the ultimate use of these properties to the private developer it hires.  The NLDC makes the determination as to which properties remain and which properties must go. 

Furthermore, the city council, after approving the plan, does not engage in any further review of the public benefit achieved by the condemnations. 

Under the due process clause, governmental bodies alone must make such decisions. 

The dangers of the current legal landscape in New London and elsewhere in Connecticut are apparent:  at the same time that the standards of what constitutes a public use have been eviscerated, the power to choose the properties to be taken has been delegated to private parties who stand to benefit from this use of government power.

Condemning these properties is totally unnecessary. 

In some cases, as mentioned, the NLDC does not even know what it will use the condemned property for.  Under Connecticut law, government may not take more property than it needs for the public use. 

Because the development projects could be successfully completed without these properties, they manifestly are not necessary.

In addition to the constitutional violations outlined above, New London also violated state statutes involving the use of eminent domain and approval of redevelopment plans by municipalities and local provisions governing eminent domain procedures. 

To challenge eminent domain proceedings, Connecticut is rather unique.  The City, acting on behalf of the NLDC, has filed condemnation papers against the property owners, but the owners cannot raise the above-outlined arguments in those proceedings. 

By state law, the only issue in the condemnation case is the amount of compensation owing the property owner.  To challenge the legality of the taking, the property owners have to file the current lawsuit as plaintiffs. 

This procedure reflects the short shrift given to property rights in Connecticut eminent domain proceedings, but it at least provides some remedy. 

The Superior Court of New London, through this lawsuit, will hear the constitutional and statutory arguments brought by the property owners and decide whether plaintiffs are able to hold onto their most prized possessions:  their homes and their businesses. 

Conclusion

If private property may be condemned and given to another private organization or company for private profit, and if the determination of which properties are to be condemned may be delegated to a private group unaccountable to the electorate, then are there any limits on the exercise of this government power?  Without accountability or constitutional constraints, all the incentives promote aggressive, unbridled use of the eminent domain power, regardless of the impact on innocent property owners.  It is time to shift the balance away from government power and back to its citizens.  The Institute’s case on behalf of Fort Trumbull property owners will hopefully end another sad chapter in the government’s modern-day abuse of its awesome eminent domain power.

Litigation Team

The litigation team is headed by Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Scott G. Bullock, who spearheaded the Institute’s successful campaign in 2000 against eminent domain abuse in Pittsburgh. 

Joining him on the team will be Institute President and General Counsel, William H. Mellor and Senior Attorney Dana Berliner, who was the lead attorney in the Institute’s winning case on behalf of an elderly widow whose home was sought by Donald Trump and a New Jersey government agency. 

The Institute is joined by local counsel Scott W. Sawyer of New London.

For more information contact:

John E. Kramer jkramer@ij.org

Vice President for Communications

Institute for Justice

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 200

Washington, D.C. 20006

202-955-1300

http://www.ij.org/index.shtml

IJ’s Merry Band of Litigators: http://www.ij.org/merry_band/index.html

The Institute for Justice is a Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm.  It advances a rule of law under which individuals control their destinies as free and responsible members of society.  Through strategic litigation, training, and outreach, the Institute secures greater protection for individual liberty, challenges the scope and ideology of the Regulatory Welfare State, and illustrates and extends the benefits of freedom to those whose full enjoyment of liberty is denied by government.  The Institute was founded in September 1991 by William Mellor and Clint Bolick.

[1][1] Kathleen Edgecomb, “Preservation group designates Fort Trumbull neighborhood as threatened,” The Day, September 21, 2000.

[2][2] Robert A. Frahm, “Leave Likely for College President,” Hartford Courant, October 7, 2000.

[3][3] U.S. Const. amend. V; Conn. Const. art. I, sec. 11. 

[4][4] See Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, 304 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. 1981).

[5][5] James Risen, “Poletown Becomes Just a Memory,” Los Angeles Times, September 25, 1985.

[6][6] The California court held that this might satisfy a public purpose, City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 646 P.2d 835 (1982), although the takeover was rejected eventually on different legal grounds.

[7][7] Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).

[8][8] Jim McCartney, “Richfield, Minn., May Start Plans to Get Car Dealership Out, Move Best Buy In,” St. Paul Pioneer Press, August 5, 2000.

[9][9] Ken Alltucker, “Corner braces for Walgreens; Businesses prepare to be booted,” Cincinnnati Enquirer, August 10, 2000.

[10][10] Sheila Hotchkin, “Two eminent domain questions evoke varying responses,” Associated Press, November 7, 2000.

[11][11] David Nitkin and Joe Naworski, “Condemnation bill defeated; Baltimore County plan to renew east side loses by 2 to 1,” Baltimore Sun, November 8, 2000.

[12][12] Dave Copeland, “Revitalization plan back to square one,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, November 28, 2000.

[13][13] “Hundreds Pack Hearing to Oppose Ikea Plan in New Rochelle,” The New York Times, November 17, 2000.

[14][14] Richard Briffault, A Government for Our Time, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 365, 389 (1999).

[15][15] See, for example, James A. Broderick, "Redevelopment Clears Hurdle," Asbury Park Press, July 6, 2000, p. B4 (borough's designation of an area as a redevelopment zone made it eligible for state grants and low interest state loans); Paul Keegan, "Who Owns Harlem," Inc., August, 2000, p. 58 (New York's Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone is charged with distributing $ 300 million in redevelopment loans and grants using federal, state, and city funds over a ten year period); Benjamin B. Quinones, Redevelopment Redefined: Revitalizing the Central City with Resident Control, 27 U. Mich. L.J. Reform 689, 704-5 (1995) (federal government offers Community Development Block Grants for redevelopment projects).

[16][16] Todd A. Rogers, A Dubious Development: TIF and Economically Motivated Condemnation, 17 Rev. L. 145, 161-62 (1998).

[17][17] Benjamin B. Quinones, Redevelopment Redefined: Revitalizing the Central City with Resident Control, 27 U. Mich. L.J. Reform 689, 710-11 (1995); “Zones of Controversy; Redevelopment: Often Misunderstood, Often Feared,” Los Angeles Times, November 27, 1994, p. B2.

[18][18] Southwestern Ill. Dev Auth. v . National City Envtl, 304 Ill. App. 3d 542 (1999).

[19][19] Kathleen Edgecomb, “For the White Knights Of The NLDC, No More Honeymoon,” The Day, September 10, 2000.

[20][20] Kathleen Edgecomb, “NLDC gets $2 million credit from bank,” The Day, December 3, 2000.

[21][21] www.nldc.org.

[22][22] Kathleen Edgecomb, “Trumbull group may be on verge of suing the city,” The Day, December 19, 2000.

[23][23] www.nldc.org.

[24][24] Julianne Basinger, “A Promoter of Town-Gown Cooperation Finds Development May Be Her Undoing,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 2, 2000.

[25][25] Robert A. Frahm, “Leave Likely for College President,” Hartford Courant, October 7, 2000.

[26][26] Julianne Basinger, “A Promoter of Town-Gown Cooperation Finds Development May Be Her Doing,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 2, 2000.

[27][27] Kathleen Edgecomb, “Decision to save Italian club questioned,” The Day, September 21, 2000.

[28][28] United States v. James Daniel Good, 114 S. Ct. 492, 505 (1993).

[29][29] See Casino Reinvestment Dev. Auth. v. Banin, 727 A.2d 102 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1998); David M. Herszenhorn, “Widowed Homeowner Foils Trump in Atlantic City,” The New York Times, July 21, 1998.

[30][30] Dave Copeland, “Revitalization plan back to square one,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, November 28, 2000.

[31][31] Connecticut College for Women v. Calvert, 88 A.2d 633, 635 (Conn. 1913).

[32][32] City of New Haven v. Town of East New Haven, 402 A.2d 345 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1977).