Kelo’s Revenge: Pfizer Abandons New London Site After Town Used Eminent Domain to Destroy Homes of Residents

170px-Pfizer_logo.svgMany of us expressed outrage at the actions of the city leaders of New London, Connecticut when they used eminent domain to seize the property of citizens against their will in order to give it to the Pfizer corporation. This anger grew with the inexplicable decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London to uphold the abusive action. Now, after all of the pain the city caused its own residents and $80 million it spent to buy and bulldoze the property, Pfizer announced this week that it was closing the facility — leaving the city worse off than when it began. For prior testimony on the Kelo decision, click here.

There is an undeniable measure of poetic justice in all of this for a town willing to victimize citizens to benefit themselves with new jobs.

I was appalled by both the decision of the city and the Supreme Court in this controversy. What is most striking is how most citizens of New London stood by and allowed their neighbors to be thrown out of their homes to secure the benefits of a new employer in town.

For the full story, click here.

11 thoughts on “Kelo’s Revenge: Pfizer Abandons New London Site After Town Used Eminent Domain to Destroy Homes of Residents”

  1. I do trust all the concepts you have introduced to your post.

    They are very convincing and will certainly work.
    Still, the posts are too short for newbies. May you please extend them a little from subsequent time?
    Thank you for the post.

  2. This just in. Columbia U fails in effort to pull a “New London.”

    Court Bars Taking Land for Columbia Campus

    Published: December 3, 2009

    “A New York appeals court ruled Thursday that the state could not use eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University to obtain parts of a 17-acre site in Upper Manhattan, setting back plans for a satellite campus at a time of discord over government power to acquire….” UQ

  3. The Pfizer corporation and the citizens of New London, Connecticut have finally been justly rewarded for their greed.

    Aesop’s (The Horse, Hunter & Stag)lesson might have saved them but the citizens of New London have exhibited a general disdain for wisdom and were encouraged in their ignorance by the Supremes.

    It is fitting that Pfizer’s facility morphed into New London’s only glue factory.

  4. My first thought in reading this post was “Wouldn’t the town have a contract in place so that if the plant closed or underperformed, then Pfizer would be on the hook for the town’s expenditures?” Then I thought about it – probably not. The states and towns that get in on this race to the bottom to attract plants act out of desperation. – and the corporations know it. About the only way I can think to impose this sort of fair dealing on these situations would be federal legislation – but that’s not very probable, is it?

  5. Remember during 2008 campaign, Palin was asked by Katie Couric were there any SCOTUS opinions (other than RvW) that she disagreed with, Palin as usual came up empty, had she mentioned this case she would have scored some easy points.

  6. In the Kelo case, Clarance Thomas dissented. Wow, a first for me to agree with Simon Legree. Question is what is the States and Pizer intentions after 2011 when the new deal ends. Who is to pick up the tab?

    What is inexcusable on the Poletown case in 81 when the Auto Manufacture GM shuttered two plants, Chrysler was near extinction and Coleman A Young was Mayor of Detroit. They took an entire town and sold it for a bargain basement song. Where were you in 1981:

    The Last Days of Poletown….

    Members of the Poletown Neighborhood Council, they are engaged in a battle to save their neighborhood as the city of Detroit prepares to raze some 1,500 private homes, schools and businesses in order to make way for GM’s new $500 million assembly plant.,9171,922498,00.html

  7. “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    Why not expand on the ruling in Kelo via the negative implication of the takings clause — take private property for private use and thereby dispense with the requirement for just compensation.

    Maybe Holmes had a point in Buck v. Bell, maybe the authors of Kelo are so imbecilic that they should have their tubes tied.

  8. “A quarrel had arisen between the Horse and the Stag, so the Horse came to a Hunter to ask his help to take revenge on the Stag. The Hunter agreed, but said: “If you desire to conquer the Stag, you must permit me to place this piece of iron between your jaws, so that I may guide you with these reins, and allow this saddle to be placed upon your back so that I may keep steady upon you as we follow after the enemy.” The Horse agreed to the conditions, and the Hunter soon saddled and bridled him. Then with the aid of the Hunter the Horse soon overcame the Stag, and said to the Hunter: “Now, get off, and remove those things from my mouth and back.”

    “Not so fast, friend,” said the Hunter. “I have now got you under bit and spur, and prefer to keep you as you are at present.”

    If you allow men to use you for your own purposes, they will use you for theirs.”

    –Aesop (The Horse, Hunter & Stag)

Comments are closed.