Mississippi Becomes the 44th State to Reject Kelo v. New London Ruling

Eminent Domain Reform Passes with 73 Percent of Vote

Jackson, Miss. — In a tremendous victory for property rights, 73 percent of Mississippians yesterday overwhelmingly rejected the infamous U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London to become the 44th state to pass stronger protections for property owners against eminent domain abuse.

Initiative 31 amends the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit the government from seizing private property by eminent domain and handing it to other private entities. Government agencies that take private property by eminent domain for a public use must own and use that property for 10 years before selling or transferring it to a new, private owner. Restricting the transfer of the property the government acquires by eminent domain discourages the forced transfer of property from one private owner to another private owner under the guise of “economic development” and will protect the vast majority of property owners in Mississippi.

“Mississippians and their property are safer today—their homes, farms or businesses cannot be taken by eminent domain simply to be to be handed over to others for private profit,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dana Berliner.

Mississippi had been one of only seven states that have not yet enacted any type of eminent domain reform since the Kelo decision which took away the homes of seven New London, Conn., families for private development and sparked a nationwide backlash against eminent domain for private gain. IJ represented Susette Kelo before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“In 2009, Governor Haley Barbour vetoed a strong eminent domain reform bill that passed overwhelmingly by both houses of the state legislature,” said Christina Walsh, director of activism and coalitions at the Institute for Justice. “Like all typical eminent domain abuse apologists, Barbour claimed that economic growth would screech to a halt if big corporations couldn’t use eminent domain to seize perfectly fine private property. As we demonstrate in Doomsday, No Way: Economic Development and Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform, that’s false—and yesterday’s vote demonstrates that Mississippians recognize that, even if Barbour refuses to.”

This was the third attempt to reform Mississippi’s eminent domain laws. A lawsuit was filed earlier this year to keep Mississippians from voting on Initiative 31 but IJ and the Mississippi Farm Bureau worked to keep it on the ballot.

IJ filed an amicus brief in the Mississippi Supreme Court on behalf of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference – Jackson Chapter and the Mississippi Chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business. In a September 2011 ruling the Supreme Court allowed the initiative to remain on the ballot but said it could be challenged if enacted.

“Voters in Mississippi spoke loud and clear: The government does not have the power to take their property and give it to a private developer,” said IJ President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. “Mississippi can finally be added to the list of states that have reformed their laws to provide better protections for property owners against government abuse.”

Shulman's Four Flushing

The Queens Chronicle has a hilarious story on the Claire Shulman-led LDC's attempt to do to the Flushing waterfront what it collaborated to do at Willets Point: take other people's property for the benefit of some of the developer members of her phony not for profit. Make no mistake about it, the "brownfield's grant' is simply a ruse and will lead to the displacement of the existing property owners-in spite of what the dissembling Shulman tell the local press.

Here's Shulman at her prevaricating best: "Consultants from several firms were quick to assure that landowners will not be forced to build anything they don’t want, nor will eminent domain be considered. “This is not a land grab,” said former borough President Claire Shulman, who heads the LDC. “We are not taking over property." Consultants from several firms were quick to assure that landowners will not be forced to build anything they don’t want, nor will eminent domain be considered."

Oh boy! Now keep in mind that it was the rancid eClaire that got up before the city council three years ago, and when asked if she was getting any more money from EDC-this was just at the time when it was revealed that she had been illegally lobbying-she simply lied to the council and thereby forestalled any further inquiries into her illegal lobbying scheme.

Now she wants us to believe that she's telling the truth in Flushing-which makes her in our view, a "four flusher." After all, the renderings on her own website tell a different story about this not being a "land grab." But maybe she is like the stopped clock, telling the truth for once. After all, maybe-since TDC owns a swath of land on the waterfront-she is just looking to get OPM to clean up TDC's land so it doesn't have to pay for the clean up itself (and raise the value of the property at the same time). Either way, this has nothing to do with the community.

And just to put the right book ends on this tall tale we find another fabulous fibber in the mix once again: "Lynn Do, one of the consultants from AKRF Inc., said the purpose of the grant is to develop “a flexible master plan” that will be community-based and “will enhance waterfront access.” She noted that Flushing is “bursting at the seams” and “we need to go west to create a place to visit and live.”

AKRF! The same folks who tried to lie their way past State DOT with a traffic study that, let's put it kindly, bent the truth curve. So, of course, they are the perfect consultants for this Shulman production. There was one bright suggestion that was offered by an anonymous person: "No more people." The plans for Willets Point-and now Flushing (don't forget Flushing Commons) will inundate these communities and all of the neighborhoods that surround them.

Not to worry, we will still have AKRF to alleviate your worries by letting one and all know that there will be no traffic congestion because of ramps that will be built-right into the Flushing River.

Shulman's Trojan Horse

The local media is covering the Shulman Brownfield's grant-with the Times Ledger provided the most informative coverage. The Ledger gets the extent to which this is a Trojan Horse-with all of the existing Flushing waterfront businesses having a very limited shelf life because of Shulman's plan:

"The controversial plan to redevelop the downtown Flushing waterfront has been cast into the spotlight in recent days. The issue resurfaced after many months of relative dormancy when the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp. announced recently that it had applied for and received a $1.5 million grant from the New York Department of State despite an ongoing investigation by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman into alleged state lobbying violations by the group."

The Ledger's Conner Sheets takes a picture of the Flushing waterfront future for his story-and this one is the proverbial 1,000 words because, in depicting the glorious transformation on the river, we notice that all of the existing businesses have been disappeared. This is the Shulman/TDC grand plan-and it is grand theft by Madam Shulman who is acting as the procurer for TDC and other developers. The LDC is certainly not any community-based group.

This reminds us of a ditty that the satirist Tom Lehrer once told about how his brother's dog got run over the other day-but the driver did it with such skill that the bystanders awarded him both ears and the tail. That is how the crafty old Shulman is doing this real estate slight-of-hand; acting as a community group, stealing city and state funds to promote her schemes, and turning the fruits of her labors over to the like of TDC-one of the most community minded citizens of the entire borough.

The Ledger gives WPU an opportunity to vent on this outrage:

"Representatives for Willets Point United, a group of Willets Point property owners opposed to the city’s plan for the 62-acre area, are furious the state is awarding money to the group. “In order to qualify to receive the grant in question, a community-based organization must represent a community having a demonstrated financial need,” wrote Gerald Antonacci, co-owner of Crown Container Co. and president of Willets Point United, in a letter to DiNapoli’s office.

He added later that “we believe that [the office of state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli’s] dispersal of $1,505,700.00 to the LDC under all of the above described circumstances will materially and negatively impact the state’s reputation.”

Shulman, ever intrepid and forthright, adds that she is looking forward to the AG's investigation coming to a conclusion (does she know something?)-but adds a salient point: "Shulman said Tuesday she is glad Schneiderman is looking into the lobbying claims so that the issue can be put to bed.

“The attorney general has this. Hopefully, he’ll make a decision about what it’s all about. And it’s not just us. It’s the Economic Development Corp., who also lobbied, but they came after us, even though I was told I could lobby, so I finally registered. It’s going to be adjudicated to its final outcome now,” she said Tuesday. “With this project I’ve got to move forward, I’ve got to keep moving, and hopefully we’ll strike oil.” (Emphasis added)

Yes Claire, EDC was your partner in crime and was violating the law along with you. But the difference between the two LDCs is a fine line, but a line nonetheless-only Shulman's LDC was a direct front group for well heeled developers. But we can see why she is so sanguine about the outcome because all of the powers that be are her co-conspirators-and shame on all of them!

Patterns of Illegality

The NY Post is reporting this morning about an investigation into the way in which a NYC DOE official used public workers illegally to lobby for the LIFO law-one of the mayor's main legislative objectives:

"A high-level city education official who had worked on Mayor Bloomberg’s re-election campaign pushed school staffers to engage in political lobbying on behalf of the administration, a city investigation found.

DOE Public Affairs Director Lenny Speiller inserted language into a petition sent out to parent coordinators at 400 schools in March urging state legislators to repeal a law that requires teachers to be laid off in order of reverse seniority, known as last-in, first-out."

What law was broken? Here is where it gets interesting for us at WPU-and there is a direct correlation to the Claire Shulman illegal lobbying claim: "The report by Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon found that Speiller had violated the state constitution by using public resources – in this case, city workers – for a private, political cause.

It also found that Speiller had emailed his proposed edits of the petition to Bloomberg’s director of state legislative affairs in Albany, Micah Lasher, and Lasher's associate, seeking feedback.

While the associate OK'd the language, Lasher did not respond to Speiller's email, according to Condon, but he wasn’t questioned about his involvement either. “I didn’t see any need for it,” said Condon, who explained that his focus was on determining who had written the political language into the petition. But some questioned why the probe didn’t examine whether Lasher or officials higher up the command chain were aware of Speiller's actions."

Was this guy Speiller the lone person responsible? "But some questioned why the probe didn’t examine whether Lasher or officials higher up the command chain were aware of Speiller's actions. “If [Lasher] was involved, we should know about it,” said United Federation of Teachers president Michael Mulgrew, who prompted the probe with a complaint to Condon’s office."

Speiller, for his part, won't live up to his name-he's not talking. So what will happen to this culprit (er, scapegoat)?

"Prior to coming to the DOE, Speiller had worked in a variety of political positions -- most recently as the Bloomberg re-election campaign’s get-out-the-vote director.Records show that he committed a similar political lobbying no-no as chief of staff to City Councilmember James Gennaro.

In 2007, the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board fined Speiller $1,000 for using city resources and soliciting council staff members to work on Gennaro’s re-election campaign. DOE officials acknowledged Speiller’s “poor judgment” but, despite his second strike, served him solely with a letter of reprimand and required ethics training."


But if a state law was violated should it be left to the Condon to pursue justice-and no district attorney or federal prosecutor? This is the same thing in regards to the Shulman action-"...using public resources...for a private, political cause. " But in the Shulman shenanigans it was actual money and not city workers that were used for the advancement of the private cause of all the developers who funded the Shulman LDC.

In our view, this should be count 2 in the indictment-are you paying attention AG?

Wages of Sin: The Unknown Cost of Phase I

The NY Times is weighing in on EDC's illegal end run over proper environmental review at Willets Point-popularly known as Phase I-and buried amidst all of the hoo ha and faux enthusiasm is this elephant in the room nugget:

"Specialists in real estate financing who are not working with any of the Willets Point bidders point out that a project of this scale is likely to require a great deal of public financing at a time when the city and state are slashing their spending.

Scott A. Singer, a principal of the Singer & Bassuk Organization, a New York company that arranges financing for major property owners, said that some construction financing is still available today, but that the hurdles for developers — especially outside Manhattan —are much higher than they used to be.

“It’s not necessarily impossible,” Mr. Singer said, “but it wouldn’t be at all surprising if this moved forward only in fits and starts.”

Undaunted the comedians at EDC drag out their own economic development expert-the renowned fiscal watchdog and EDC's Charlie McCarthy, CM Julissa Ferreras, to insist this is all eminently doable-Bloomberg's version of a stimulus no doubt: "Yet is it realistic to imagine that redevelopment will occur anytime soon on a site that has bedeviled city officials and civil leaders for decades? “I think it’s absolutely realistic,” Ms. Ferreras said, citing the proposals the city has received. “It will kick-start our economy.”

It will kick start the economy? Is there LSD in the Corona water? This project will kick start-if at all-when Ferreras is an abuella. And WPU is fighting hard to make the long road ahead that much harder. As the Times reports, there are a number of legal potholes ahead:

"Though the project has the support of politicians, some business owners are still fighting it. Michael Rikon, one of their lawyers, accused the city of trying to clear the site to make way for additional parking for the ballpark, which is much closer to Willets Point than its predecessor, Shea Stadium.

“It’s just a sham,” Mr. Rikon said, referring to the project. “No developer can build there, and it will cost billions of dollars to correct the conditions that exist. What will happen is that Bloomberg will go out of office, and the project will be forgotten again.”

And then there are the ramps-those mitigating traffic necessities tha the city has decided-kind of like when the school test scores were trumpeted as evidence of Bloomberg's educational miracle-that the ramps were not needed. Honestly, they studied this very carefully and came to this conclusion in an above board and transparent manner. ("City officials say the ramps are included in the overall plan but are not needed for the first phase.")

Here's WPU's Mike Gerrard on this issue:

"Opponents say there are other legal hurdles that could delay or thwart development. They have argued that dividing the project into stages was not permitted under the plan approved by the City Council because cleaning up only one part of the site at a time runs the risk of recontamination.

They also contend that it would violate environmental laws to start building at Willets Point until two ramps are added to connect the new development to the Van Wyck Expressway to ease traffic.

“It is our belief that this project, if built, would put so much traffic on the Van Wyck as to immobilize it,” said Michael B. Gerrard, a Columbia law professor who is also representing the business owners."

When the book and the movie on Willets Point come out there will be an all star cast of villainous characters to headline the event-and when the dust settles it will be clear just who did what to whom-and who kept their mouths shut when they should have spoken out.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is one righteous law enforcement or judicial soul who will say, "This isn't right or fair." We're not holding our breathe and we now know how badly Diogenes felt looking for the one honest man. There is one philosopher whose observation is appropriate for this fiasco-and it was Voltaire who pointed out; "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

What is Eric Schneiderman Up To?

There is something very wrong in the office of the NY State Attorney General-and no we don't mean staff prosecutors offering their services as whipping girls. No it's even more serious than that, with the truth and the protection of state tax payers taking the real life beating because of the AG's lackadaisical approach to investigating wrongdoing.

The Wall Street Journal story from last week only touched the surface of this outrageous nonfeasance. Something is not quite right with the state's chief law enforcement office and if it doesn't come down hard and soon on the illegality of Claire Shulman's LDC then we will know that when it comes to tackling the real powers that be there is a double standard at play.

Here's what the WSJ missed when it said that, "But the two agencies failed to get any confirmation about the existence of the attorney general's probe." What was missing was that the person who corresponded with DOS and OSC pointedly told the sister agencies that she couldn't determine the existence of an investigation-it's right there in black and white email format.

But what's really snarly is that the WSJ and Crain's could get the AG to publicly state that there was an investigation, "ongoing," but the two state agencies were unable to confirm its existence. Now how hard was that? Can you say the fix is in?

Keep in mind that because of these shenanigans the state issued a $1.5 million grant to a not for profit masquerading as a charity. Is there still a charities bureau at the AG's office? If so, they might consider disbanding it for all of the good it's doing here. What really gets us at WPU-after all, we are the aggrieved party threatened with the loss of our constitutional guaranteed right to property-is that the AG's office refused to answer a voice mail from the Department of State.

As WPU points out in its press brief: "First, DOS email obtained by WPU indicates that during two months when DOS left telephone messages for OAG in attempts to ascertain the status of OAG'S investigation of Shulman's LDC, OAG did not return those calls.

DOS attorney David Treacy informed other DOS personnel via email on March 11, 2011 at 4:01PM (referring to Lauren Kittelsen, Esq., Assistant Attorney General at the Charities Bureau): _I left messages for Ms. Kittelsen [sic] on her direct line and at the Charities Bureau main number in NYC last month and this month, and still have not heard back_."

And this is not enough to generate any one's sense of outrage? Nah, not when it's only property rights that are threatened. The right to property is being marked down by elected officials who believe-just like Elizabeth Warren-that the government has all the rights and only leases certain ones back to the individual as it sees fit.

Meanwhile, at about the same time that Kittilsen could find no information on the matter in the AG's Office, representatives of WPU met with OAG staff responsible for the investigation. Contrary to Ms. Kittilsen's claims, it is not true that, "The only person still employed by the AG's Office who may have knowledge of the 2009 inquiry of the LDC's lobbying activities is out on medical leave, and it is not true that "...[e]veryone else who may have been involved with the matter, or may have known the status or final resolution of the matter, apparently has since left the AG's Office."

Moreover, an investigation of the type that WPU understands OAG is conducting pertaining to Shulman's LDC would necessarily generate voluminous records, which would need to be duly filed and maintained by OAG. Given the likely existence of such records, some of which would establish the status of the investigation, we find it incredible that Ms. Kittilsen apparently did not, or could not, locate those records and thereby provide appropriately reliable information to DOS regarding the status of OAG's investigation.

We could go on but why keep banging our heads. Either the AG will put up on this investigation or it won't. But is there anyone who seriously believes that this office is capable of a serious chastisement of the dowager Shulman?

What is Eric Schneiderman Up To?

There is something very wrong in the office of the NY State Attorney General-and no we don't mean staff prosecutors offering their services as whipping girls. No it's even more serious than that, with the truth and the protection of state tax payers taking the real life beating because of the AG's lackadaisical approach to investigating wrongdoing.

The Wall Street Journal story from last week only touched the surface of this outrageous nonfeasance. Something is not quite right with the state's chief law enforcement office and if it doesn't come down hard and soon on the illegality of Claire Shulman's LDC then we will know that when it comes to tackling the real powers that be there is a double standard at play.

Here's what the WSJ missed when it said that, "But the two agencies failed to get any confirmation about the existence of the attorney general's probe." What was missing was that the person who corresponded with DOS and OSC pointedly told the sister agencies that she couldn't determine the existence of an investigation-it's right there in black and white email format.

But what's really snarly is that the WSJ and Crain's could get the AG to publicly state that there was an investigation, "ongoing," but the two state agencies were unable to confirm its existence. Now how hard was that? Can you say the fix is in? Keep in mind that because of these shenanigans the state issued a $1.5 million grant to a not for profit masquerading as a charity. Is there still a charities bureau at the AG's office? If so, they might consider disbanding it for all of the good it's doing here.

What really gets us at WPU-after all, we are the aggrieved party threatened with the loss of our constitutional guaranteed right to property-is that the AG's office refused to answer a voice mail from the Department of State. As WPU points out in its press brief:

"First, DOS email obtained by WPU indicates that during two months when DOS left telephone messages for OAG in attempts to ascertain the status of OAG'S investigation of Shulman's LDC, OAG did not return those calls. DOS attorney David Treacy informed other DOS personnel via email on March 11, 2011 at 4:01PM (referring to Lauren Kittelsen, Esq., Assistant Attorney General at the Charities Bureau):

_I left messages for Ms. Kittelsen [sic] on her direct line and at the Charities Bureau main number in NYC last month and this month, and still have not heard back_."

And this is not enough to generate any one's sense of outrage? Nah, not when it's only property rights that are threatened. The right to property is being marked down by elected officials who believe-just like Elizabeth Warren-that the government has all the rights and only leases certain ones back to the individual as it sees fit.

Meanwhile, at about the same time that Kittilsen could find no information on the matter in the AG's Office, representatives of WPU met with OAG staff responsible for the investigation. Contrary to Ms. Kittilsen's claims, it is not true that The only person still employed by the AG's Office who may have knowledge of the 2009 inquiry of the LDC's lobbying activities is out on medical leave, and it is not true that "...[e]veryone else who may have been involved with the matter, or may have known the status or final resolution of the matter, apparently has since left the AG's Office."

Moreover, an investigation of the type that WPU understands OAG is conducting pertaining to Shulman's LDC would necessarily generate voluminous records, which would need to be duly filed and maintained by OAG. Given the likely existence of such records, some of which would establish the status of the investigation, we find it incredible that Ms. Kittilsen apparently did not, or could not, locate those records and thereby provide appropriately reliable information to DOS regarding the status of OAG's investigation.

We could go on but why keep banging our heads. Either the AG will put up on this investigation or it won't. But is there anyone who seriously believes that this office is capable of a serious chastisement of the dowager Shulman?