A Stitch in Haste

Word is spreading rapidly that New London Development Corp. ("NLDC"), the developers who won the right to seize private homes in after the Supreme Court's disgraceful decision in Kelo v. New London, No. 04-108 (2005), are now planning to charge the soon-to-be-homeless residents five years of back rent as punishment for daring to fight for their Fifth Amendment rights:

In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents.

In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any money made from tenants — some residents' only form of income — would also have to be paid to the city.

I'm certainly not an expert on the nuances of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on civil lawsuit awards, or payment of expenses and court costs, or any of the other mundane aspects of enforcing judgments. But it seems to me that any case that makes it to the Supreme Court is by definition not "frivolous" and that NLDC did not have the authority to seize the affected properties until the litigation finally and conclusively said they did. Therefore, the notion that NLDC has, a matter of law, "owned" the property since 2000 is indefensible.

If the law supposes that, the law is a ass.

More outrage at Hit & Run, Pejmanesque, Louisiana Libertarian, Neolibertarian Network, JunkYardBlog, Out of Control, Marginal Revolution, OzarkLad, voluntaryXchange, PoliBlog.

UPDATE: Red Guy in a Blue State crosses swords with the NLDC and makes an observation that I completely overlooked -- if Ms. Kelo and the other litigants have been paying property taxes for the past five years, then one might suggest that there is an irrebuttable presumption that the government has recognized them as the legal owners of the properties during that period. In any case, read NLDC's response to Red Guy -- it's amazingly obnoxious.