Kelo Anniverasry

Friends:

One year ago today, Susette Kelo and the Institute for Justice stood before the United States Supreme Court, arguing for a simple and fundamental right: the right to own one's property. Months later, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that private property could be seized through eminent domain on the mere promise of private commercial development. But the ruling has served more as a beginning than an end, igniting an unprecedented nationwide property rights revolt that continues to grow. More than 43 states are working towards eminent domain reform, with a handful having already passed legislation to curb the abuses the Kelo decision allows. Activists from around the country are standing up to tax-hungry governments and land-hungry developers, telling them "Hands off my home!" And Susette Kelo still lives in her little pink house alongside her neighbors, fighting day-by-day to remain in her dream home that was condemned for a private developer.

But Susette's home isn't the only one that hangs in the balance - the Kelo decision puts all of our homes, businesses, churches and farms on the chopping block. And unless we continue to push for eminent domain reform in the legislatures and at the grassroots, anyone could be next.

So here's what you can do TODAY to ensure YOUR home or small business is safe:
FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO FRIENDS and tell them to join the Castle Coalition! They can do so here: http://www.castlecoalition.org/join/index.html

CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS and tell them Hands Off My Home! You can do so here: https://action.popuvox.com/default.aspx?actionID=214

Let us know how you'd like to get involved! Want to pass out brochures in your neighborhood? Link to the Castle Coalition on your website? Run a table at your state's fair? Host a screening of The Castle? Reply to this email and we'll give you the materials you need to stop eminent domain abuse!

We thank you for your support and dedication to the fight against eminent domain abuse. We can't do it without you, and with your help, we continue to look forward to a day where once again, every man's home is his castle.

Best,
Christina Walsh
Assistant Castle Coalition Coordinator
Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 682-9320
www.ij.org
www.castlecoalition.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 21, 2006
CONTACT: John E. Kramer or Lisa Knepper (703) 682-9320

One Year After Kelo Argument National Property Rights Revolt Still Going Strong
43 State Legislatures Work Toward Eminent Domain Reform

Arlington, Va.- The little pink house in New London, Conn., that started a nationwide property rights revolt still stands one year after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments and then eventually ruled that it could be torn down for private development.

But the future of that home-and of every home, small business, church and farm-remains in question. Will state and local legislatures change their laws to protect private property from eminent domain abuse (where the government’s power of eminent domain is used for private gain in the guise of creating more jobs or increasing taxes), or will lobbyists representing developers and cities block meaningful reform?

On February 22, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the now-infamous case of Kelo v. City of New London, in which it ruled that the government may take private property from one person only to hand it over to another in the name of “economic development.”

As O’Connor Predicted: Rich & Connected Push Out Poor & Middle Class

In her dissent, Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recognized the inevitable abuse that would follow. She wrote, “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” As Justice O’Connor predicted, eminent domain projects for private gain involving thousands of homes and small businesses of the poor and middle class continue to play out nationwide. Among them:

• Senior citizens Carl and Joy Gamble from Norwood, Ohio, stand to lose their home of more than 35 years so developer Jeffrey Anderson can expand his $500,000,000 empire with a new mall.
  
• More than 20 homeowners in Long Branch, N.J., many of whom have owned their oceanfront homes for generations, may be kicked off of their land for the construction of expensive condominiums.
  
• In Riviera Beach, Fla., a poor, predominantly black community (and one of the last affordable waterfront neighborhoods in Florida), is threatened by a massive redevelopment plan that may condemn up to 2,000 homes and businesses in favor of more expensive homes, upscale retail, and a yacht club, boat marina and other luxury amenities.
  

Even Justice Stevens Supports Legislative Limits On Eminent Domain
Since Kelo, 43 state legislatures have passed or will soon consider eminent domain reform in their legislative sessions. Alabama and Texas both enacted laws aimed at preventing exactly what Kelo allowed. Ohio established a one-year eminent domain moratorium as it studies the issue. Michigan, whose own state Supreme Court rejected Kelo-style takings in 2004, referred a measure to its voters to codify the case law and require blight removal projects to proceed by parcel, which will prevent nice homes from being acquired with the bad ones. And the U.S. Congress is poised to restrict federal economic funds from being used by eminent domain abusers.

“What’s been passed so far are good first steps, but they are only first steps and much more needs to be done if small property owners are to be protected,” said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which defended the homes of New London, Conn., resident Susette Kelo and her neighbors. “Nearly every state needs not only to restrict the use of eminent domain for private commercial development, but also to reform their blight laws to stop bogus blight declarations. Unless both of those reforms are done, and done in the right way, this abuse will continue.”

“The public should be warned that lobbyists from the National League of Cities, planning associations and developers are out in force and are working overtime to preserve their power,” said Scott Bullock, an IJ senior attorney. “They’ll stop at nothing to make sure even the most sensible reforms will fail.”
Even Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion in Kelo, made clear that states were free to impose greater limits on condemnation. Justice Stevens said mere months after the decision that he believes eminent domain for economic development is bad policy and hopes that the country would find a political solution. He said, “I would have opposed it if I were a legislator . . . . My own view is that the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials.”

Historic Coalition Aligned Against Abuse
An historic coalition that cuts across the philosophical spectrum has united in calling to reform the nation’s eminent domain laws. Along with the Institute for Justice, the NAACP, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Farm Bureau, National Federation of Independent Business, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Council of Churches as well as other non-traditionally aligned groups have joined in the legal and legislative fight against eminent domain abuse.
“This unprecedented coalition makes it clear that, when it comes to eminent domain abuse, it is the people versus the profiteers,” said Chip Mellor, IJ’s president and general counsel.
In addition, the Castle Coalition (a nationwide grassroots network of citizens determined to stop the abuse of eminent domain in their communities) launched the most comprehensive website on the issue. CastleCoalition.org provides information and assistance to journalists, legislators, homeowners, students and scholars. CastleCoalition.org features an interactive map (powered by Google Maps) tracking condemnations for private development nationwide, an up-to-date catalog of eminent domain reform legislation at all levels of government, as well as an “Eminent Domain Survival Guide” to help homeowners successfully fight illegitimate land-grabs.

“The CastleCoalition.org website is ‘information central’ on the issue of eminent domain abuse and reform,” said Steven Anderson, Castle Coalition coordinator. “Homeowners need as much information and guidance as possible if they are going to win these very difficult fights. CastleCoalition.org gets them the information they need.”

Pink House Still Stands
One year after the Kelo argument, Susette Kelo and her neighbors remain in their homes.
Shortly after the Kelo decision was handed down, the legislature and Conn. Governor M. Jodi Rell asked for a moratorium on all takings for economic development, including those in New London, while the legislature looked at changing the law. At first, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), the private body granted eminent domain authority by the City, agreed to abide by this, and then changed its mind and started sending out eviction notices to some of the owners. This caused a firestorm of controversy in New London and throughout the state. Governor Rell ordered the NLDC to rescind the notices, which it reluctantly agreed to do. Shortly thereafter, the long-time head of the NLDC and antagonist of the property owners, David Goebel, resigned. The governor has said she supports keeping the homes in Fort Trumbull if possible and has appointed a mediator (independent of the NLDC) to look at all of the options. This month, the City Council unanimously voted to find a way to save many of the homes in Fort Trumbull.

“I do not plan on moving out of my house,” said Kelo. “It is my dream home, and I will do everything in my power to make sure it stays where it is.”

# # #
[NOTE: To arrange interviews on this subject, journalists may call John Kramer, the Institute for Justice’s vice president for communications, at (703) 682-9320 ext. 205 or in the evening/weekend at (703) 527-8730. For an on-line media kit on this issue, visit www.ij.org or www.castlecoalition.org.]

Just Say "NO" to Increased Marijuana Possession Penalties

Cincinnati City Councilmember Cecil Thomas, Chair of the Law & Public Safety Committee, wants to enact tougher penalties for simple marijuana possession. He has submitted the following motion:

4-200600120 MOTION, dated 2/10/06, submitted by Councilmember Thomas, that the City Administration prepare a report that explores the possibility of creating a new ordinance that addresses possession of any amount of marijuana within the limits of the City of Cincinnati.

Councilmember Thomas' ultimate goal is to raise the level of the offense to a fourth-degree misdemeanor, with a $250 fine and a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail.

Last year, former Councilmember David Pepper introduced a similar motion. With the help of the emails and phone calls to Council members and public testimony before the City Council, Pepper’s proposal was thwarted.

Under our new Mayor, most decisions are made at the committee level, and then brought before the full Council for what is usually rubberstamp approval. Therefore, the best, and perhaps only, way to stop this law is to ensure that the Law Committee does not approve it.

Please contact the members of the Law & Public Safety Committee and let them know you oppose this step backwards Councilmember Thomas claims that the higher punishment will make Cincinnati safer. Ask the Council if there is any evidence to support this claim. He also argues that this would give the police another tool that would allow them to investigate and search a suspect more than they do now. Ask the Council how tougher punishment, which comes after an arrest and conviction, would give police more power to search. A search has to occur in order for the marijuana to be found in the first place.

If you can, contact the Law Committee and give voice to your objection.

Cincinnati City Council Law & Public Safety Committee Members

Cecil Thomas, Committee Chair
801 Plum St. Rm 349
Cincinnati, OH 45202-1979
Phone: (513) 352-3492
Fax: (513) 352-3218
Email: cecil.thomas@cincinnati-oh.gov

Leslie Ghiz, Committee Vice Chair
801 Plum St. Rm 354
Cincinnati, OH 45202-1979
Phone: (513) 352-3344
Fax: (513) 352-3277
Email: leslie.ghiz@cincinnati-oh.gov

Jeff Berding
801 Plum St. Rm 346A
Cincinnati, OH 45202-1979
Phone: (513) 352-3283
Fax: (513) 352-3289
Email: jeff.berding@cincinnati-oh.gov

Vice Mayor James R. Tarbell
801 Plum St. Rm 352
Cincinnati, OH
45202-1979
Phone: (513) 352-3604
Fax: (513) 352-3621
Email: james.tarbell@cincinnati-oh.gov

John Cranley 801 Plum St. Rm 356 Cincinnati, OH 45202-1979Phone: (513) 352-5303 Fax: (513) 352-4657 Email: john.cranley@cincinnati-oh.gov

Chris Monzel
801 Plum St. Rm 346B
Cincinnati, OH
45202-1979
Phone: (513) 352-3653
Fax: (513) 352-4649
Email: chris.monzel@cincinnati-oh.gov

Letters to the Editors:
www.enquirer.com/editor/letters.html

postedits@cincypost.com

letters@citybeat.com

Paul Green
Chair
Hamilton County Libertarian Party

Another Useless Drug Law

Gov. Bob Taft signed a bill Thursday limiting the sale of pseudoephedrine, a decongestant used to make methamphetamine. This is the latest attempt by the government to make drug prohibition work. This law goes into effect this May. At that time, if one wishes to purchase anything with pseudoephdrine (the active ingredient in many decongestants), they must, buy it from a pharmacist (a prescription is not required), show one’s ID, and sign a log that the police and other government agencies will have access to. So now it is the government’s business if one can’t fall asleep because of a cold.

As a Libertarian, I am going to do something weird; I will not write a rebuttal. I will not site any examples of previous failures of the drug war. I will not talk about how our basic rights to privacy are being eroded away (ok, maybe a little). Instead, I am going to use direct quotes from a drug warrior who pushed for this law.

Clermont County Sheriff A. J. "Tim'' Rodenberg Jr. had this to say in the Cincinnati Enquirer, “It's a step in the right direction. Any little bit helps." But he also adds, "If someone wants it bad enough and they're addicted to meth ... I think there's certainly a possibility that could provoke more incidents." What kind of incidents is Sheriff Rodenberg referring?

Bryan Hutcheson, owner of Bryan's Family Pharmacy in Lebanon told the Enquirer in that article that he is worried that there will be more robberies at drug stores.

So we now have a law that will

1. Not Work
2. Increase Crime
3. Erode our civil liberties
4. Make it harder for you to buy cold medicine to help get a good nights sleep

Now I wonder if my pharmacist has an over-the-counter drug for my blood that is starting to boil.

Cops say 'Legalize Pot', ask this Retired Cop why.

Retired Police Officer Howard Wooldrige will be riding his horse into town on February 2. In fact, he is going across country on his horse. Now, he is stopping in Cincinnati to spread the word about how drug prohibition has done more harm by this country than any drug ever could. Of the 79 murders in Cincinnati in 2005, how many of those were a direct result of drug prohibition? Here is an op-ed that Office Wooldrige submitted to the Cincinnati Libertarian.

Officer Wooldrige is a member of the National Rifle Association & Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He is a Fellow of the Royal Geographic Society and a graduate of Michigan State University and speaks 4 languages (plus horse). His love of horses, travel and adventure came together in 2003, when he and his horse Misty rode alone from Georgia to Oregon, 3100 miles. In 2005 he rode from Los Angeles to New York City spreading the word from the saddle about the failure & dangers of drug prohibition.


War on Drugs: Good Public Policy?


War on Drugs. How is that working for us in America? Is it reducing crime? Is it reducing rates of death and disease? Is it effective in keeping drugs and drug dealers away from our children? These are important questions for a policy which costs us taxpayers some 70 billion dollars this year.

As a police officer, I fought on the side of the ‘good guys’ for 18 years in the War on Drugs, giving me a lot of actual experience in the trenches. After much experience, consternation and out-and-out frustration in not achieving a single, stated goal in the long term, I came to the conclusion that we must be doing something wrong. It seemed no matter how many dealers we took off the streets, new ones immediately popped up to take their places. The prices for drugs kept falling, indicating an increasing supply. The purity kept increasing; heroin increased from 3.6% to 38.2% purity between 1980 and 1999. The prison population kept increasing until over 70% of all inmates are there on some drug-related charge. Between 1985 and 1996 worldwide production of heroin increased by three times, while coca doubled.

Meanwhile, terrorists and drug barons were amassing fortunes from drug sales and people continued to die on our streets. We have turned third world thugs into billionaires that can buy governments and launch terrorism around the world. Our prisons are filled with non-violent offenders while murderers, rapists and child molesters (not subject to mandatory minimums) get early release due to over-crowding. The only thing we have to show for this terrible policy is that today after 35 years and a half trillion tax dollars spent, illegal drugs are cheaper, stronger and very easy for our kids to buy.

Drug gangs have spread like the plague out of the large cities and into medium and even small cities. Young teens join gangs to make ‘easy,’ big money selling drugs. And 13 year olds are shot and killed everyday because drug prohibition gives them this job option. A policy which many say is to protect kids actually causes hundreds of deaths a year and tens of thousands of destroyed young lives.
During alcohol prohibition at the beginning of the 20th century, rates of murder and police corruption in the United States rose to the highest levels in its history. The year we ended prohibition those statistics fell to a low ebb where they remained until we declared the war on drugs 37 years later. Thanks to that war we have surpassed both those figures with the new prohibition. The unintended consequences of this terrible war are needlessly destroying the lives of generations of America's youth. How many young people do you know who have used an illegal drug, then put the drugs behind them and gone on to lead productive lives? U.S. presidents and many members of our legislative bodies have done exactly that. With imprisonment, those possibilities are eliminated. You can get over an addiction, but you will never get over a conviction.

We should be putting much more effort into education and treatment. The education has to be based in fact and not emotional scare tactics. The treatment needs to voluntary; forced treatment is not much different than some government’s attempts at brainwashing. I suggest that if substances were regulated and taxed, adequate monies could be raised for quality programs, the huge profit incentive (up to 17,000%) would disappear, and the glamour appeal of presently illicit drugs would be reduced.

Drug prohibition represents the very definition of a failed public policy. Will Rogers said, “If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging.” Prohibitionists are well-intentioned but are blinded by ideology. However, I don’t want to be too harsh. I once rode a horse and tilted at windmills!


Officer Howard J. Wooldridge (retired)
Education Specialist , Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (http://www.leap.cc/)
Washington DC

Howard J. Wooldridge
2 East 14th Street
Frederick, MD 21701
817-975-1110
http://us.f523.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=wooldridge@leap.cc