Misplaced Pages

#416583

53-490: The first Up Your Alley Street Fair was held in 1985 on Ringold Street between 8th and 9th streets. The event was moved to its current location on Folsom Street at Dore Street in 1987. Among the original rationales for this fair was to illustrate, in the face of redevelopment pressures, that the South of Market neighborhood was already home to a leather subculture and that this community was still active and organized in spite of

106-624: A conflict of interest , as its then-under construction headquarters building was being built on land taken by eminent domain for economic redevelopment. The Kelo fiasco eventually cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, with nothing to show for it. The "carefully vetted" municipal plans that formed the basis for the Supreme Court's decision proved to be illusory. Eventually, the City of New London extended an apology to Susette Kelo and her neighbors. In 2011, Richard N. Palmer , one of

159-599: A variance from cities. North America: Europe: Asia: Central America: Kelo v. City of New London Kelo v. City of New London , 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate

212-764: A "public purpose" constitutes a "public use" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Specifically, does the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see main article: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights ), protect landowners from takings for economic development, rather than, as in Berman, for

265-628: A consolidation of research facilities of the two companies. Pfizer chose to retain the Groton campus on the east side of the Thames River , closing its New London facility in late 2010 with a loss of over 1,000 jobs. That coincided with the expiration of tax breaks on the New London site that would have increased Pfizer's property tax bill by almost 400 percent. After the Pfizer announcement,

318-745: A depressed urban area (even if that area is not blighted ), then the project serves a public purpose, which qualifies as a public use. The court also ruled that the government’s delegation of its eminent domain power to a private entity was constitutional under the Connecticut Constitution. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider questions raised in Berman v. Parker , 348 U.S. 26 (1954) and later in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff , 467 U.S. 229 (1984). Namely, whether

371-406: A private developer from a group of applicants rather than picking out a particular transferee beforehand and... [7.] other private beneficiaries of the project [were]... unknown [to government] because the... space proposed to be built [had] not yet been rented... Kelo v. City of New London did not establish entirely new law concerning eminent domain. Although the decision was controversial, it

424-425: A site close to downtown New London. Susette Kelo, however, has moved to a different part of Connecticut. In spite of repeated efforts, the redeveloper (who stood to get a 91-acre (370,000 m ) waterfront tract of land for $ 1 per year) was unable to obtain financing, and the redevelopment project was abandoned. As of the beginning of 2010, the original Kelo property was a vacant lot, generating no tax revenue for

477-427: Is a real estate niche, in which investors purchase failing golf courses. Investors then subdivide the golf course into individual plots of lands. They then resell the plots of land for builders, or build on the plots then resell it to residential home buyers. This process is usually done with the assistance of a real estate broker . The main challenge of this niche is the difficulties that investors face in requesting

530-550: Is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Redevelopment Redevelopment is any new construction on a site that has pre-existing uses. It represents a process of land development uses to revitalize the physical, economic and social fabric of urban space . Variations on redevelopment include: Redevelopment projects can be small or large ranging from a single building to entire new neighborhoods or "new town in town" projects. Redevelopment also refers to state and federal statutes which give cities and counties

583-617: Is more gay-male focused than the Folsom Street Fair, but welcoming to all sexes and sexual orientations. In 2020, both the Up Your Alley Fair and Folsom were cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This article related to an American festival is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . This article about a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ)-related festival or event

SECTION 10

#1732791757417

636-513: The AIDS pandemic. Now run by the same non-profit organization that produces the much larger Folsom Street Fair , the world's largest BDSM fetish and leather event, Up Your Alley Fair draws ten thousand fetish enthusiasts and onlookers and serves as a "warm-up" event for the organizers but also as a less tourist -focused event for locals. Steamworks Baths hosts a Twister stage, and there is dancing, DJs, STI testing , and fetish wear sales. This fair

689-505: The Connecticut Supreme Court justices who voted with the 4–3 majority for the city, also apologized and said that he should have voted differently. On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the original decision, President George W. Bush issued an executive order instructing the federal government to restrict the use of eminent domain: ...for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for

742-494: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . The Takings Clause reads, ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this limitation also applies to the actions of state and local governments. The plaintiffs argued that economic development, the stated purpose of the taking and subsequent transfer of land to

795-619: The San Francisco Chronicle , in November 2009, in its lead editorial called the Kelo decision infamous: The well-laid plans of redevelopers, however, did not pan out. The land where Susette Kelo's little pink house once stood remains undeveloped. The proposed hotel-retail-condo "urban village" has not been built. And earlier this month, Pfizer Inc. announced that it is closing the $ 350 million research center in New London that

848-477: The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment . In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut , for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan". Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain

901-824: The Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not. Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLC/SJLS amicus brief on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey , noting: Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to

954-609: The Court made it clear that, in the scrutiny regime established in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish , 300 U.S. 379 (1937), government purpose is a question of fact for the trier of fact. Kennedy fleshed out this doctrine in his Kelo concurring opinion; he sets out a program of civil discovery in the context of a challenge to an assertion of government purpose. However, he does not explicitly limit these criteria to eminent domain, nor to minimum scrutiny, suggesting that they may be generalized to all health and welfare regulation in

1007-557: The Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test. In Romer v. Evans , 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996), the Court said that the government purpose must be "independent and legitimate." And in United States v. Virginia , 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996), the Court said the government purpose "must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation." Thus,

1060-573: The New London Development Corporation, did not qualify as a public use under the Fifth Amendment. The Connecticut Supreme Court heard arguments on December 2, 2002. The state court issued its decision (268 Conn. 1, SC16742) on March 9, 2004, siding with the city in a 4–3 decision, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Flemming L. Norcott, Jr. , joined by Justices David M. Borden , Richard N. Palmer and Christine Vertefeuille . Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote

1113-534: The agencies' own appraisal figures because the displaced people are often unaware of their legal rights and lack the will and the funds to mount a proper legal defense in a valuation trial. Those who do so usually recover more in compensation than what is offered by the redevelopment agencies. The controversy over misuse of eminent domain for redevelopment reached a climax in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London , which ruled that

SECTION 20

#1732791757417

1166-437: The agency. The financing/funding of such operations might come from government grants, borrowing from federal or state governments and selling bonds and from tax increment financing . Other terms sometimes used to describe redevelopment include urban renewal (urban revitalization). While efforts described as urban revitalization often involve redevelopment, they do not always involve redevelopment as they do not always involve

1219-402: The authority to establish redevelopment agencies and give the agencies the authority to attack problems of urban decay . The fundamental tools of a redevelopment agency include the authority to acquire real property, the power of eminent domain, to develop and sell property without bidding and the authority and responsibility of relocating persons who have interests in the property acquired by

1272-537: The city. In the aftermath of 2011's Hurricane Irene , the now-closed New London redevelopment area was turned into a dump for storm debris such as tree branches and other vegetation. However, as of May 2022, a private developer was building 100 apartments, a 100-unit hotel, and a community center on the property. Pfizer , whose employees were supposed to be the clientele of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project, completed its merger with Wyeth , resulting in

1325-435: The city...'" Kennedy is also interested in facts of the chronology which show, with respect to government, [3.] awareness of... depressed economic condition and evidence corroborating the validity of this concern... [4.] the substantial commitment of public funds... before most of the private beneficiaries were known... [5.] evidence that [government] reviewed a variety of development plans... [6.] [government] chose

1378-556: The demolition of any existing structures but may instead describe the rehabilitation of existing buildings or other neighborhood improvement initiatives. A new example of other neighborhood improvement initiatives is the funding mechanism associated with high carbon footprint air quality urban blight . Assembly Bill AB811 is the State of California 's answer to funding renewable energy and allows cities to craft their own sustainability action plans. These cutting edge action plans needs

1431-407: The dissent, joined by Chief Justice William J. Sullivan and Justice Joette Katz . The State Supreme Court held that the use of eminent domain for economic development did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The court held that if a legislative body has found that an economic project will create new jobs, increase tax and other city revenues, and revitalize

1484-402: The elimination of slums and blight? Kelo was the first major eminent domain case heard at the Supreme Court since 1984. In that time, states and municipalities had slowly extended their use of eminent domain, frequently to include economic development purposes. In the Kelo case, Connecticut had a statute allowing eminent domain for "economic development" even in the absence of blight. There

1537-726: The focus of vigorous discussion and attracted numerous supporters on both sides. Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners. Susette Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead attorneys on the case) to the NAACP , AARP , the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and South Jersey Legal Services. The latter groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly. The case

1590-526: The formerly privately held property was $ 78 million. The promised 3,169 new jobs and $ 1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized. As of 2021, the area remains an empty lot. Opposition to the ruling was widespread, coming from groups such as AARP , the NAACP , the Libertarian Party , and the Institute for Justice . The American Conservative Union condemned the decision. Much of

1643-575: The funding structure; which can easily come forward through redevelopment funding. Some redevelopment projects and programs have been incredibly controversial including the Urban Renewal program in the United States in the mid-twentieth century or the urban regeneration program in Great Britain. Controversy usually results either from the use of eminent domain , from objections to the change in use or increases in density and intensity on

Up Your Alley Fair - Misplaced Pages Continue

1696-474: The general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible " public use " under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment . The Kelo decision was widely denounced and remains the subject of severe criticism. Remedial legislation to restrict the use of eminent domain for private development has been enacted or introduced in a number of states. Golf course redevelopment , also known as golf course conversion

1749-423: The highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. Following the decision, many of the plaintiffs expressed an intent to find other means by which they could continue contesting the seizure of their homes. Soon after the decision, city officials announced plans to charge the residents of the homes for back rent for the five years since condemnation procedures began. The city contended that

1802-585: The majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test: This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.' Thomas additionally observed: Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of

1855-406: The opposition to the ruling was so widespread American journalist Charles C. W. Cooke argued in 2015 that a constitutional amendment like the one drafted by law professor Ilya Somin might attract enough support by a non-partisan coalition of progressives , independents and conservatives to undo the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London . Some in the legal profession construed

1908-508: The political process, including large corporations and development firms. O'Connor argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Thomas also issued a separate originalist dissent, in which he argued that the precedents the court's decision relied upon were flawed. He accuses

1961-406: The problem." As a result, most states changed their eminent domain laws. Prior to the Kelo decision, only seven states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight. Since the decision, forty-five states have amended their eminent domain laws, although some of these changes are cosmetic. The New York Times editorial board agreed with

2014-408: The public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Many owners of family farms also disapproved of the ruling, as they saw it as an avenue by which cities could seize their land for private developments. Since

2067-414: The public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome. Federal appeals court judge Richard Posner wrote that the political response to Kelo is "evidence of [the decision's] pragmatic soundness." Judicial action would be unnecessary, Posner suggested, because the political process could take care of

2120-412: The residents have been on city property for those five years and owe tens of thousands of dollars of rent. In June 2006, Governor M. Jodi Rell intervened with New London city officials, proposing the homeowners involved in the suit be deeded property in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood so they could retain their homes. A group of New London residents formed a local political party, One New London, to combat

2173-523: The ruling, calling it "a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest." The Washington Post ' s editorial board also agreed with the ruling, writing, "[t]he court's decision was correct. . . . New London's plan, whatever its flaws, is intended to help develop a city that has been in economic decline for many years." However, Reason countered that the New York Times' support of Kelo v. City of New London represents

Up Your Alley Fair - Misplaced Pages Continue

2226-421: The scrutiny regime. He wrote: A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should [conduct]... a careful and extensive inquiry into 'whether, in fact, the development plan [chronology] [1.] is of primary benefit to... the developer... and private businesses which "may" eventually locate in the plan area... [2.] and in that regard, only of incidental benefit to

2279-767: The site or from disagreement on the appropriate use of taxpayer funds to pay for some element of the project. Urban redevelopment in the United States has been controversial because it can displace poor and lower middle class residents, often transferring residents' land and homes to developers for free or a below-market-value price. This is done on the condition that the developer will use that land to construct new commercial and residential developments. The residents displaced by redevelopment are often undercompensated, and some (notably month-to-month tenants and business owners) are not compensated at all. Historically, redevelopment agencies have been buying many properties in redevelopment areas for prices below fair market value, or even below

2332-602: The state, was "not enough to justify use of the condemnation power." On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 decision in favor of the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy , David Souter , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , and Stephen Breyer . Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens's majority opinion. In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to

2385-529: The takings. The controversy was eventually settled when the city paid substantial additional compensation to the homeowners, and agreed to move Kelo's home to a new location. The land was never deeded back to the original homeowners, most of whom have left New London for nearby communities. Three years after the Supreme Court case was decided, the Kelo house was dedicated after being relocated to 36 Franklin Street,

2438-410: Was also an additional twist in that the development corporation was ostensibly a private entity; thus, the plaintiffs argued that it was not constitutional for the government to take private property from one individual or corporation and give it to another, if the government was simply doing so because the repossession would put the property to a use that would generate higher tax revenue. Kelo became

2491-527: Was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in favor of the City of New London. The owners, including lead plaintiff Susette Kelo of 8 East Street, sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its eminent domain power. The power of eminent domain is limited by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and

2544-604: Was argued on February 22, 2005. Oral arguments were presented on behalf of the petitioners (plaintiffs) by Scott G. Bullock of the Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C. and on behalf of the respondents (defendants) by Wesley W. Horton of Horton, Shields & Knox in Hartford, CT. The case was heard by only seven members of the court with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presiding, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist

2597-576: Was issued on June 25, 2005, by Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas . The dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this taking power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion—take from the poor, give to the rich—would become the norm, not the exception: 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

2650-559: Was not the first time "public use" had been interpreted by the Supreme Court as "public purpose." In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens wrote the "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public" (545 U.S. 469). Thus, precedent played an important role in the 5–4 decision of the Supreme Court. The Fifth Amendment was interpreted the same way as in Midkiff (467 U.S. 229) and other earlier eminent domain cases. The principal dissent

2703-605: Was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as " public use ". After the Court's decision, the city allowed a private developer to proceed with its plans; however, the developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the project, and the contested land remained an undeveloped empty lot. The decision from this case sparked controversy with 47 states strengthening their eminent domain laws and 12 states amending their state constitutions to stop eminent domain from benefiting private parties. This case

SECTION 50

#1732791757417

2756-534: Was recuperating from medical treatment at home and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was delayed on his return to Washington from Florida; both absent Justices read the briefs and oral argument transcripts and participated in the case decision. During the case, Justice Antonin Scalia asked whether a ruling in favor of the city would destroy "the distinction between private use and public use." He also asked if private use, which provided merely incidental benefits to

2809-406: Was the anchor for the New London redevelopment plan, and will be relocating some 1,500 jobs. The Chronicle editorial quoted from The New York Times : "They stole our home for economic development," ousted homeowner Michael Cristofaro told the New York Times . "It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk away." The final cost to the city and state for the purchase and bulldozing of

#416583