PD Committee Hearing Transcript for 02/15/2006

SENATOR COLEMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to convene the public hearing of the Planning and Development Committee for today, Wednesday, February 15^th. The usual rules for the public hearing apply.

And that is, we have two lists. One is for elected officials. We will be hearing from individuals who signed up on that list for however long of the first hour that it takes, and then we will turn our attention to the general public list.

To the extent that it is possible, we ask people to address themselves to the Bills that are indicated on the agenda for today. In general, people will have three minutes in order to make their comments as they appear before the Committee.

We would like to have written copies of your testimony. If you have not already provided such written copies to the staff, please endeavor to do that either today or at some point shortly after the hearing.

The first person that we will hear from from the public officials list will be Mayor Eddie Perez of the City of Hartford.

MAYOR EDDIE PEREZ: Good afternoon. I would like to thank the Chairs for giving me this opportunity to come before you today to support Raised Senate Bill 36 concerning the authorization of bonding for flood control improvements in the great City of Hartford.

Hartford's flood control system was built in response to major floods in the 1930s and consists of 7 ½ miles of levies, six pumping stations capable of pumping 34 million gallons of water an hour, 7 miles of enclosed conduit and 6 locks.

The system was built at a cost of over $1 billion during the 50-year period by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The flood control system protects the residents of the City of Hartford and key regional and State assets including this building that we are in today, the Legislative Office Building, the State Armory, the NVC treatment facilities for the region, the new Connecticut convention center and, most importantly, major employers of our city and region.

The City of Hartford pays for the operation and maintenance of the system without any federal or state assistance. Though the system is, in some areas, 70 years old, it is still very operational.

However, without $50 million in upgrades and maintenance that has been determined by the Army Corps of Engineers, we face the potential for failure of the system in key locations over a five- and six-year period if no upgrades are made.

The City has already earmarked $10 million in city bond funds to upgrade needed improvements right away, but it needs an additional $40 million over the next five or six years to ensure the integrity of the system.

I urge your support for this important Bill and appreciate your willingness to work with the City to prevent a potential disaster in the event of a major flood event.

I also want to quickly mention that you have a few bills regarding the issue of eminent domain that is before you this Session.

I would like to say that, as you know from my previous support of the work that the City of Hartford has done with eminent domain, it is a key economic development.

I will be testifying in the future on that as the bills go through the Legislature and to various committees. But more importantly, I would just ask you to proceed cautiously and to study this issue.

It's a very important issue to communities like Hartford, which are 95% built out in blight and economic development are difficult things to do without an economic development tool.

Eminent domain has been used in the past. Mr. Chairman, those are my remarks. I will take any questions.

SEN. COLEMAN: Are there questions for Mayor Perez? Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question. Of all the time that's spent up in Hartford, where are the six locks, where are they?

MAYOR EDDIE PEREZ: They are throughout the system. There are a couple, you know, throughout the system. It is designed for, they're near the pumping stations.

I could provide a map with that kind of detail so that you could see the whole system, and I will do that for the whole Committee.

REP. MILLER: Are they in Hartford proper?

MAYOR EDDIE PEREZ: They're all in the Hartford, the dike system is within the city boundaries. It runs a little bit into Windsor and a little bit into Wethersfield, but the locks and the bulk of the system is in Hartford proper.

REP. MILLER: If you could get that to us, that would be helpful.

MAYOR EDDIE PEREZ: I will get you full detail on the needs assessment that was taken and the evaluation that was made by the Army Corps of Engineers. I will get that directly to the Committee.

REP. MILLER: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Sir.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you, Representative Miller. Further questions? I have one. Did you come in concerning when was the last time any maintenance or work had been done on this system?

MAYOR EDDIE PEREZ: Well, we approved $10 million. We maintain the system on a regular basis. Two years, actually about three years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers came in and evaluated the system and cited the kinds of improvements that we need to do.

That some of them are needed and are deferred maintenance, if you may, things like overgrowth of trees into the dike system. That questions the integrity of if we have a lot of water hitting up against it.

But the $10 million that we approved is for design and improvements that we need to make immediate. And we plan to make those in the next two years and plan to try to fix the whole system and update the system in the next five to six years.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Any other questions? Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO: Mayor, do you have, can you furnish us the report from the Army Corp. and what your proposal is so we can sort of get a feel for how the two match up? Would that be appropriate?

MAYOR PEREZ: That would be appropriate. We will get that to you in the next week or so through the staff, yes.

SEN. FASANO: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you, Senator. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Mayor, for your testimony. Next speaker will be Minority Leader, Representative Ward.

REP. WARD: Thank you, Senator Coleman, Representative Wallace, Chairmen of the Committee and my colleagues in the General Assembly. I appreciate the opportunity to address you this afternoon.

And I appreciate the fact that this Committee has raised two bills dealing with the subject of the reform of eminent domain. The specter of condemnation hangs over all property.

Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.

Those are not my words, but the words of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent in the Kelo case.

I would ask as you consider the legislation before you, which many characterize as a very complex issue, to keep this in mind, will the changes that you have made stop Suzette Kelo's home from having been taken.

If our law was as you would draft it now, would it still allow a homeowner in a non-blighted home in an area that is beautiful to be taken by government because somebody can build something there that will pay more taxes to the community?

If the answer to that question is yes, we can still take Suzette Kelo's home, then your Bill has not done enough. And that's the way that I would ask that you would judge it.

Because I think it is, the court did find, as a constitutional right, that the State of Connecticut can take any individual's property and turn it over to a private developer if the net effect is the local government said it's good for economic development.

I think, as a State Legislature, we should say that is not going to be the law any longer in the State of Connecticut. On the specific bills before you, House Bill 5038 does do some good things in the area of eminent domain reform.

I don't think it goes far enough. I certainly appreciate the inclusion of an ombudsman so when those areas where there are takings that are by all accounts agreed for a public purpose, that there still be a way that individual property owners have somebody who is on the lookout for them, not just private counsel to do that.

Representative Wallace, particularly I want to thank you for taking the time to meet with the ombudsman from the State of Utah during, I was going to say last Session, one of the Special Sessions, whatever the day was.

From our conversation, I know that you found he and his explanation of how that operates very interesting and informative. I certainly did as well. I had a chance to speak with him. I think that's an important step to take.

But again, I would say, and I appreciate that we are tightening in House Bill 5038 before us that an area for blight needs to be deteriorated, not just deteriorating, and that it needs to be in contiguous areas.

I think those are all good things to do in regard to the blight statute. I would simply ask that you also with it say that you will not authorize takings on the basis of economic development alone and not make economic development in a broad sense a public purpose, but limit public purpose to what most of the folks in the State of Connecticut thought it was, the school, the bridge, the highway and things of that sort.

Again, I think the simple test for that is look around, think of folks whose properties would be taken, particularly what has happened in New London, and could that be repeated even if we pass the bills in front of us.

If it could simply could be repeated, we haven't met the challenge. Thank you very much for your time and I would be happy to answer any questions.

SEN. COLEMAN: Are there questions for Representative Ward? Representative Wallace.

REP. WALLACE: Yes, Sir. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for testifying, Mr. Minority Leader. I know one of the issues we are wrestling with on the Committee, and you may have some thoughts and you may wish to respond later, is what about mixed-use property, retail on the bottom and rental on top?

So it's not owner-occupied. How are we going to address economic development with that type of property?

REP. WARD: I think that, and it may not be a complete answer and I may need to get back to you, first, if they were both to be privately owned, in other words, it's not public housing but private housing and a private shopping mall, I'd say it should be out.

If you had some mixed use where essentially it was public housing in a small portion, my personal view is you would have to look at what the principal purpose of it was.

If there was a de minimis private use but substantially traditional public use, then I think it would be appropriate for taking. But if the definition of public use is we will get more tax dollars, again, I don't think that's what we should be saying is public.

But I think there are ways to determine what is the principal use of it. So if you had a public parking facility, I think that's fine.

If that also benefits a private shopping mall, that would be fine, but not if what you really did is took all the property to give to a private developer for a shopping mall and said, but by the way, a tenth of the property we are taking we are going to dedicate to this shared public use, then I don't think that's a true public use.

I would say the public use has to be the principal purpose of the taking, not a de minimis purpose of the taking.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: May I have one question. You made reference to the definition of blight and you made one suggestion or you commented on the suggestion in the Bill concerning the elimination of the word deteriorating in the definition of blight.

At least many of the officials that came before this Committee to testify concerning the definition of blight seemed reluctant to propose any all-encompassing definition.

I guess they preferred to leave the definition of what constitutes a blighted area to the local authorities. Would you have any further suggestions concerning what should be included in the definition of blight?

REP. WARD: I guess I would say that the one thing I was saying is that deteriorating, which means it is sort of headed towards blight, I thought you were right to take that out of the law. I think that is subject to great abuse.

I don't know that it's a conclusive answer, but to me deteriorated I think would be better to define it, and that would be, you know, significant public health or safety risk, significant safety-related building codes.

By that, I mean I don't think it's enough, I believe in Ohio, for example, they say, well, the lots are undersized under current zoning so that makes it a blighted neighborhood.

Well, we all know just because we decided today you need a half-acre but 30 years ago you need a quarter acre, that doesn't make it blighted. It just makes it smaller or perhaps more affordable.

And so I think the definitions should, I think it would be best for us to define as best we can in statute and use indicia that most of us would think of, and that is I think that there is a public safety or health risk to occupy the buildings that are there that affect that specific area.

And that are, again, not that roads are narrower, and that has been used in other states, that roads are narrower compared to current safety standards as to what a road is. Well, that may simply be.

There's plenty of old neighborhoods in cities that are perfectly great neighborhoods that were built without the anticipation of the automobile traffic there is today in all of the great cities of this country.

I don't think you should be able to call that blighted when it's simply the roads were built for a different traffic pattern.

I think, again, it should be is the housing really substandard, are the stores or other things so below common standards of today that it puts people at risk.

And I think it shouldn't just sort of broadly that, you know, the houses aren't as big as we like to build them today, the roads aren't as wide as we like to do today, so that you really have to change the character of the neighborhood.

And just to change that character, you said it was blighted, I think that would be a mistaken policy. And I think it, the reason I say that is because eminent domain tends to take property from folks with less money and less means.

That seems to be the record. Also, generally folks, as in the Kelo case, who live somewhere, that if a lot of money is invested, everybody would say is one of the most beautiful places you could live in the world.

You know, in Long Branch, New Jersey, they just took all waterfront property from homeowners with modest cottages to put $800,000 to $1.5 million condos on them. They called the area blighted.

They were well-maintained homes, but they didn't meet the current, they didn't look like mansions that you usually put on beaches if you were buying it with private dollars and building it today.

That ought not be viewed as blight. And I will tell you I think a little bit, not the intent, but a little bit of the effect in Kelo was homes, the views of the Long Island Sound and a nearness to the Long Island Sound, why were those taken?

Because it had the most attraction to a developer, because at the end of the day, if they get the property cheap enough by using eminent domain, they can make a huge profit by building on it.

That's who I think falls most often victim to it, although I would say in the State of Connecticut, anybody with waterfront property should heed the words of Justice O'Connor, they are not protected.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Are there further questions for Representative Ward? Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO: In the Kelo case, you know, some of the discussions that we had with folks who were involved in the case, the issue was that New London had a choice.

They could either take it as eminent domain by virtue of saying it's a deteriorated neighborhood or under the redevelopment statutes. And they were advised by various agencies that redevelopment was better.

So in part of your sort of fix that is proposed, is it your position that we would have to define what a deteriorated neighborhood is within the law that we are looking at and using some of the elements that you have, or how would you go about defining that issue?

REP. WARD: The first thing would simply be to repeal the Statute that authorizes the taking for economic development purposes, and that's sort of the simple, direct fix that I am supporting.

Once that is removed, I think there would be communities that would be tempted to use the blighted Statute, and therefore I think it is useful at the same time to tighten that. That is kind of what I was talking about.

And, again, I think just by taking the words deteriorating out helps a great deal because that is so subjective. We are predicting it's going to be bad down the road, so we are going to take it now. That is really what deteriorating means.

I understand that, I believe it's Attorney Londrigan is the Corporation Counsel in New London or for the Development Authority, I forget which, has argued, well, we didn't use the blight Statute because got money under the other Statute.

I am not going to question whether that's true or not. I will tell you that as you read the blight Statute, I don't think he could have won a case.

There are strong defenses that could have been raised even under our blight statute today. So I don't think they could have had the same success.

He may disagree with that, but it was certainly not an open and shut case that that area met the definition of blight. Even under our current law, I don't think it did.

Lawyers can disagree. But it certainly, we should not sit there as a Committee and say that's just technical that it went under economic development, it was terribly blighted.

There are defenses that homeowners had under our blight Statute that there is a strong likelihood and certainly the Institute for Justice believes that they would not have succeeded under the blight Statute.

SEN. FASANO: So in a step-by-step scenario, you are saying let's remove the economic purpose issue for taking homes.

And then on the other side of the ledger, because we are still left, and I agree with you, the deteriorating language is bad, but no matter how you define that, do you believe that we should give either a definition to deterioration, not deterioration but deteriorated neighborhood, or do you think we should build in defenses that would give a homeowner some leverage to confront that argument?

What would be, out of curiosity, your view as to a better approach?

REP. WARD: I'm not sure, Senator, that I, I don't have a clear answer to that, whether it, I guess generally, I would think it would be better to have tight definitions and not make it the homeowner's burden to prove a defense. But a fair statute could probably be written either way.

SEN. FASANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. COLEMAN: Additional questions? Seeing none, thank you, Representative Ward, for your testimony.

REP. WARD: And thank you for your time.

SEN. COLEMAN: Senator McKinney is next.

SEN. MCKINNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, everyone. I am also here to testify on the two Bills before you regarding eminent domain and want to thank the Chairs and the Committee for raising this issue.

I also want to, before he leaves, if he hasn't left already, thank the House Minority Leader, Representative Ward, who has been an outspoken and for some time outspoken leader on this issue, long before many of us woke up and read the Kelo case.

There are very few issues that are as easily understood and universally accepted as the right to homeownership and the constitutional protection of private property.

I have received, as I'm sure many of you have, e-mails and letters and cards, phone calls and just comments in the District from constituents on this issue.

And they are all saying the same thing. They are all to different degrees outraged or surprised or scared that our homes, anyone's home can be taken for economic development.

They were, as I were, as I suppose we all were, operating under the assumption that eminent domain was a last resort used, perhaps to build a highway or a school or something that was universally needed for the community's benefit, not an economic development project.

As a caucus, the Senate Republicans stand unanimous in our support for legislation to restrict the right of government to take someone's home for the purposes of economic development.

A number of states have already acted on this issue in response to Kelo. Our towns and cities are looking for us to act. Many our towns have looked at local ordinances, some have passed some, some have said let's wait until the State acts.

And I know there are many issues. Representative Wallace, you raise a very, one of the many difficult issues, what if it's mixed use, what if there are a number of purposes for the taking?

But I think the one issue which we should all be supportive of and should all universally understand is that someone's home, someone's primary residence, where they live, should not and cannot be taken by government for the purposes of economic development.

And I think we must act to enact that protection at least before we adjourn this May. The fact is that people out there are somewhat scared or fearful that their home can be taken.

The reality is few homes will be taken by eminent domain, but anyone's home can be taken by eminent domain. And so I think it is incumbent upon us as a Legislature to act.

I appreciate the fact that you are having a public hearing on this important and complicated issue and look forward to working with your Committee in any way possible.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you. Next, we will hear from Representative Mikutel.

REP. MIKUTEL: Good afternoon, Representative Wallace and Members of the Committee. I will be on my good behavior today. Well, you know, this issue is important to me because I can speak from personal experience.

My family has been the victim of eminent domain three times in the last 40 years. And I lost the house that I grew up in, was born in, to the State. And so I can tell you, it's a very gut-wrenching experience and not one that anyone really wants to go through.

I am here to tell you that I applaud you for raising House Bill 5038, because this is the Bill that, in the guts of this Bill, as far as I'm concerned, is the preventing of taking one's home for private gain and using eminent domain for that purpose.

As you know, the American people by far don't believe that this is something that the government should be doing. As far as they are concerned, the Constitution in government was to protect their property rights.

And they have been proven wrong. The Kelo decision, as you know, is going to, in my opinion, open the floodgates for abuse in this whole eminent domain process.

And there already is plenty of abuse in the system as it is today. The Connecticut laws are so broad, they are the broadest laws in the nation in terms of eminent domain and what you can use it for.

Basically, you can combine any two properties for a business purpose. It is so broad that it just, it needs to be tightened up.

Well, so I am glad to see that the Committee is actually recommending that we eliminate the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes when it comes to one's home.

Now, again, like everyone here seems to be quoting Justice O'Connor, and I am going to quote Justice O'Connor, who said that economic development per se is an unreasonable exercise of eminent domain power.

To me, it is inconceivable that our founding fathers would have interpreted the Fifth Amendment the way that it has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court in effect has really abandoned the field here and left it up to the local politicians. And that is a very scary thought.

Because local elected officials, I would have to say, they lean towards, government has an insatiable appetite. And therefore, they are going to be looking to expand their grand list.

And if a developer makes a proposal and that, that is going to turn a lot of heads. And so we need to tighten it up and provide greater protection for the American people and for our constituents.

We, you are the last hope for our constituents to protect the American dream of property rights in this State, because the courts have not done it. Local officials are not going to do it. It is up to you people to protect that American dream.

The idea that you need economic, to use eminent domain for economic development or the cities are going to wither and die, to me, that's a phony argument. Five states have eliminated the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

It can be done. The State of Connecticut offers many tax incentives, packages to entice business into this State. It happens every day, all across this country.

So that argument, to say that we need to have eminent domain for economic development, to me, flies in the face of reality. So I ask you to remove the threat that hangs over every homeowner's head, because it is there.

In closing, I would just like to say that the government's seizure of private homes for economic development is fundamentally un-American. It goes against everything America stands for.

It is just plain flat-out wrong. It strikes at the core of our liberty and undermines the people's belief in democracy. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. I would ask the audience to refrain from that so we can hear from as many people as possible. Are there any questions?

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next, we are going to hear from City Council Member Craig Miner from Bristol.

CRAIG MINER: I have a better one. Yes, I am the less attractive Craig Miner. Representative Wallace, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing.

I am speaking as a city councilman, as a local official. I am not speaking on behalf of the City of Bristol. These are my thoughts only. I applaud the Planning and Development Committee for taking this on as an issue.

It is an issue that has concerned a lot of people through the country and certainly Connecticut. And I certainly encourage that the eminent domain powers that municipal governments have been given be tightened up.

I agree with a lot of provisions in the Bill. The one though that I do want to speak to, obviously, is the one that would prohibit towns from taking private dwellings as part of economic development.

I think, for one thing, the distinction between economic development for, let's say a municipal industrial park, which in my experience in Bristol was where we used eminent domain recently.

The distinction between a municipal industrial park as not being a legitimate public purpose but a school or a road or a post office as being legitimate, I'm not sure that isn't kind of an artificial distinction.

Because in the final analysis, we build roads because they encourage economic development. We build hospitals because they are necessary for quality of life, which is an aspect of which economic development is an aspect.

It's really all related. There really, in the final analysis, is no real difference between economic development and any other purpose that eminent domain is legitimately used for.

Now, people of good will can and do disagree whether the benefits to the municipality of a municipal industrial park outweigh the rights of the family that lived in that home, for example, for generations.

But that's a debate that should be left at the local level. I know many of you were local officials. You may or may not have had to deal with this issue in your previous lives.

But I would respectfully suggest it's an issue that is best discussed and decided locally rather than at the state level, the Legislators denying towns the ability on a case-by-case basis make this decision.

Now one of the, one of the revisions to the ordinance, I mean to the Statute, would require a more transparent process in the adoption of the development plan. And I think there should be more public involvement with that.

I think the notion that people have nowadays that they could wake up tomorrow and find that their home has been condemned, that's nonsense, because the development plan has to go through several rounds of hearings.

As it is now, your bill would include putting the proposed development plan on the Internet, which would be great for those people that have Internet access. And that's good, I certainly encourage that. There should be more participation in the process.

I know an earlier version of the Bill would require a referendum before private property could be taken by the municipality, and I, frankly, would not have a problem with that.

I think if the City Council or Board of Selectmen can't sell it to the voters, well, then shame on the city. Maybe it's not that well-thought-out a plan.

So, again, in closing, I would like to say please leave that as an economic development tool in our arsenal at a local level.

And again, let the local officials decide, who are answerable to the voters, of course, every two years, whether they chose wisely or not. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Any questions? Representative Drew.

REP. DREW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did I hear you correctly? It sounded like what you are saying is that to take the homes for economic development ought to rightfully be something along the lines of see what the majority of the public things is in the best interest of the community or that there be a weighing by the town governmental body.

And presumably, that weighing determines what they think is in the best interest of the community. Are you saying something along those lines?

CRAIG MINER: Yes. The first part of your question, since whether a town uses this very powerful tool to displace homeowners reflects on the entire town, I think, I don't have a problem with the entire town, everyone in that town being able to have a say in that decision.

Because it does reflect. I think people from New London perhaps may feel that they are held in less regard around the State because they live in a town where people's homes can be taken from them.

So I think I would like to let the citizens have a say in whether their town displaces people from their homes.

I am not sure other elected officials would agree with that, you know, subjecting ourselves to the public on a weighty issue of that sort, but I think I would agree with that.

REP. DREW: But, well, it's not my statement, so I'm trying to understand what you are advocating. Are you saying both that the public ought to have a right to both approve the taking or to disapprove or both, basically, that it be a town vote or the town elected officials vote on it?

CRAIG MINER: Yes, that was what I was saying. But I'm sorry to have spent so much time on that, because that's not in the current Bill. So I don't perhaps want to spend too much time talking about that.

REP. DREW: I don't want to take too much time either, Mr. Chairman, but I just want to, I picked up that part and apparently that's not the main focus.

But nevertheless, my judgment is as I hear that on a more fundamental, deep and broad basis, I would strongly advocate opposition to that.

The idea that you give the vote to the public whether somebody has the fundamental right, whether it be the property or any other fundamental right, you know, at some point it becomes mob rule.

The majority determines what rights members of the public have. And I think a fundamental question of this eminent domain debate, both on a Constitutional level and here, is how strong is this fundamental right to property that the public has and when can it simply be put to a vote of the public.

And I would certainly, I don't want my silence to misunderstood. That sounds like something I would strongly oppose.

CRAIG MINER: All right. I'm not saying that the right should be put to public vote. I think the municipality should retain the right to do that.

But I think on a case-by-case basis, an actual specific, a real development plan which says, that identifies an area of town that is subject to that plan and land within that area would be then condemned, that plan, what I was suggesting is that maybe that plan ought to be put to a vote.

Not the concept, not the question of whether the municipality has the right to do that, that I think is, I mean, the Supreme Court said we do, there was no question about that. The question is how much do we want to limit ourselves from using that right.

I was suggesting that maybe one way to gauge whether the municipality should is by putting it to a vote.

REP. DREW: Again, I don't want to belabor this point too much, but to make I hope a very simple point, that I think a core of what we are debating here in Connecticut, as much as anywhere else, is that the problem with that is the federal Constitution.

That we are essentially debating what are the limits that we think there ought to be for state government to do that, and this isn't like any other choice.

This is a, that the government ought to be stopped unless there's sufficient criteria to do this. This is simply not a matter of majority vote. But I will stop there. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO: I know you are not talking for the Town of Bristol, City of Bristol. Let me ask you this question, though.

Personally, do you feel that the process of taking a home, forget whether you should or shouldn't, but do you feel that the process is a fair process as it exists today for the homeowner?

CRAIG MINER: I, well, I feel the process is fair because by the process I am talking about the development plan and how it is adopted over a long period of time.

The issue of compensation, and I know your Bill addresses that by the 150% of market value approach, which I understand that there are problems with that technically, but I think conceptually, I do believe that a homeowner should be compensated more than the fair market value of the land.

Because, obviously, the homeowner has, well, first of all, it's an unwilling sale, so for that reason alone, they should be compensated more. But there is an emotional content to a person's home.

I don't think investment property or commercial property should be compensated at 150%, but philosophically, I don't have a problem, in fact, I think we should compensate homeowners who are involuntarily losing their home at more than just what the fair market value is.

REP. DREW: And let me just concentrate on the business a little bit. If somebody had a business, you understand that if there is a taking of that business, it's the taking of the structure that is valued, not necessarily the good will within that business. Do you understand that to be the way it works?

CRAIG MINER: Yeah, and I think that is one of the, I think that is reasonable. As I understand it now, good will is not factored in. I could be mistaken, but I think that should be, because it is part of the value of the business.

REP. DREW: So with respect, I understand your position, at least from your point of view regarding the ability to take for different economic reasons, but you still believe there should be a fix overall with respect to the compensation level both at the commercial and the residential.

We expect that a fix could be made, because I agree with you, there's issues with respect to the 150% on the fair market value because no one would ever acquiesce to the value because they could get 150% if they went forward with the foreclosure or with the condemnation.

So there is some reason to hold back, if you would. So there are issues like that out there. But you agree that, at least on that end of the process, there are issues out there that really need to be worked on by this Legislature.

CRAIG MINER: Yes, I do.

REP. DREW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. That concludes the public officials, state heads and public officials portion of the public hearing.

With that, we proceed to the public portion of the public hearing. We have a number of people signed up, and just to refresh everyone's attention or refresh everyone's memory, this is at least the fourth, perhaps the fifth public hearing that this Committee alone has had on eminent domain.

The 25 people who have signed up have all signed up to speak on eminent domain. I would ask that, to the best of your ability, if you could really focus in on the legislation before you, it would be very helpful to the Committee if you could not read any prepared remarks but rather summarize your remarks.

That would be very helpful to the Committee. And I will ask the Clerk to set the timer for four minutes, please. And with that, we will proceed to our first person who signed up, Colleen Murphy, followed by Christopher Wood.

COLLEEN MURPHY: Good afternoon, Representative Wallace and Members of the Committee. I think I was misplaced slightly. I am the Executive Director and General Counsel of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, so I am a public official.

So I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today in opposition only in part to Raised House Bill 5038. One of the prior speakers referenced the guts of the Bill.

I think I am properly testifying more on the fine tissue of the Bill. The Commission objects to portions of the Bill concerning certain provisions of the FOI Act, because the amendatory provisions seem to be somewhat in conflict.

Section 13 of the Bill adds language to an exemption already contained in the FOI Act, which is 1-210 B7, for the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by an agency relative to the acquisition of property.

It adds the phrase including acquisition by eminent domain. Under current law, there really is no need to amend that provision since the Commission has previously ruled that the exemption includes appraisal and other records in an eminent domain context.

Further, the Bill proposes to delete the words provided the law of eminent domain shall not be affected by this provision. At this point in time, it is unclear what such a change is intended to accomplish.

It is unclear what impact such a wholesale deletion would have. Thus, the matter should be reviewed more thoroughly before undergoing a statutory change.

I know that the statement of purpose of the Bill indicates that the intent is to require disclosure of information on the taking of real property by eminent domain.

If that is the purpose, the FOIC respectfully submits that the language of Section 13 ought to be amended to truly reflect that purpose. And the FOIC would support such a change for openness.

However, if the intention is to ensure the confidentiality of eminent domain records, then such intent would conflict with the proposed language in Section 14 of the Bill.

Such Section would require that executive sessions, which are the closed portions of public meetings, may not be held to discuss acquisition of real property by eminent domain.

The intent of this provision is apparently to ensure that eminent domain discussion occurs in the open. I am sure that there are many good arguments for that and probably future speakers may speak to that.

The FOIC supports that intent but is concerned about the conflict of this provision with the confidentiality provisions of Section 13, which I just discussed in the records context.

The language as written may be confusing and could lead to odd results, since agencies would be able to keep eminent domain records confidential under one provision but would presumably have to discuss such records in an open session.

In addition, this language concerning executive sessions would be better situated in the executive session provisions of the FOI Act, which are located in Section 1-206.

In closing, it is the FOIC's position that the language of this Bill needs some clarification to avoid confusion and to avoid leading to unintended outcomes.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. And I would be happy to work with the Committee on possible refinement of language in the Bill as it pertains to the FOI Act. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. The Committee would certainly appreciate your assistance in helping the Committee make clear its intent to open up the observation of the eminent domain process.

I would also, you said there was a finding that FOI had produced, if you could certainly submit a copy of that to the clerk, it would be very helpful.

COLLEEN MURPHY: Certainly, yes.

REP. WALLACE: Great. Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

COLLEEN MURPHY: Thank you. Good afternoon.

REP. WALLACE: Christopher Wood, followed by Jim Finley.

CHRISTOPHER WOOD: Thank you, Representative Wallace, Senator Coleman, Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Wood and I am here speaking on behalf of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association.

I have submitted some written testimony which I will just summarize for you here briefly. I would first like to discuss Raised Senate Bill 34 and Raised House Bill 5038 regarding eminent domain procedures and control.

These Bills do make a step toward the effort that you have been putting in quite some time now to identify and implement improvements and better controls over the exercise of this important planning and development tool.

CCAPA has followed the Committee's work on this matter over the past year or so and I refer you to the Chapter's comments submitted to your public hearing back in August of 2005.

I have attached a copy of that to my written testimony for your review and to refresh your memory of our basic position.

As planners attuned to and practiced with promoting and protecting public interests, CCAPA recognizes the obligation to protect interests and rights of property owners and community.

It believes that the exercise of eminent domain authority requires a careful and rigorous planning process with complete public participation.

It understands that the application of eminent domain authority can only regain and retain public confidence if it is accompanied by fair and just compensation to property owners.

Based on our preliminary review of the Proposed Bills, we believe that Raised Senate Bill 34 does provide appropriate and effective safeguards for private property interests while retaining the ability of municipalities to implement important planning to revitalize and improve communities.

Generally speaking, we would support the procedures and improvements to the protections that are provided in that Bill. Similarly, House Bill 5038 contains a number of new safeguards and procedural guidelines.

Several provisions of this Bill, I believe, will require some more careful attention, specifically prohibitions on the condemnation of property, if a housing unit exists on it, as Mr. Miner was speaking a few minutes ago, the prohibition on executive session discussions that you just heard from the FOI representative about.

These require some pretty careful consideration before such constraints are imposed upon the use of eminent domain. CCAPA would prefer to see further attention to these details before endorsing the intent of that particular Bill, House Bill 5038.

And, of course, we'd be willing to work with the Committee and others if at all possible to help. I would also like to comment briefly on Raised [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1A to Tape 1B.]

--in this bill as a means of ensuring that interim changes to the State plan are, in fact, consistent with current local plans.

We would recommend the addition of a requirement that proposed changes be approved only with the finding that such a change is consistent with a municipal plan.

In our written testimony, we offer some specific language. We would also note that the consideration of interim plan changes illustrates the need for better coordination and oversight of state planning generally and the integration of planning across all levels of government.

We believe the establishment of a planning and policy board or committee would be an important component of a broader series of improvements for planning for the State and its municipalities.

We believe that such a committee would be most effective with broad representation from the Legislature, State agencies, and private organizations.

We hope to present the Committee with details on this and other recommendations for improving and better coordinating state planning and its municipalities at a future hearing dedicated to that subject.

In the meantime, of course, we are available to assist the Committee and staff on this and other proposals for planning to help build better communities. And with that, I would just offer to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Are there any questions? Regarding House Bill 5042, on the Continuing Committee, one of the things we do, we have discussed is when someone should be, when an applicant should be allowed to bring their plan forward.

The proposal from the Connecticut APA can't be approved unless the changes are consistent with the policies and recommendations of the municipal plan.

I believe that the purpose of the Continuing Committee is actually to serve as almost a safety valve for an individual property owner who feels imposed upon by the municipality.

So I personally am open to how to work with that, because I think that is what the purpose of the Continuing Committee, to provide that safety valve for someone who feels that they were imposed upon by the municipality.

And then to say that they couldn't come forward to anyone to get a change, it seems there always has to be an appeal somewhere.

CHRISTOPHER WOOD: You mean by the municipality through its plan, it devises a plan that would prevent a property owner from doing a certain kind of development.

Well, I can see that, and I think we can talk about ways to get around that. But similar to requirements that some municipality has that a planning commission must find consistency with the municipal plan before the Zoning Commission can approve a special use in a given district, that's a safeguard process too.

But again, it gets back to the plan. And that's our main point, is that it should be based on good planning.

One other thing I would note that caught my attention, and I'm not sure if I read it correctly or if it is, in fact, a problem, but the way the language is crafted in House Bill 5042, it would seem to imply that no one would be able to apply for an interim change to the plan if they had not revised their plan subsequent to last year's revisions to 8-23.

You might want to ask staff to take a look at that and make sure that you're not creating a de facto moratorium on applications for interim changes.

But, Representative Wallace, I would be happy to talk with you or work with your staff to try to clarify that consistency with the plan issue and come up with some language that may satisfy everyone if at all possible.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Satisfy 51%. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

CHRISTOPHER WOOD: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

REP. WALLACE: All right. Next is Jim Finley, followed by Bonnie Stewart. And Jim Finley has changed this year.

RON THOMAS: Yeah, the other Jim Finley, slightly taller, among other changes. I am Ron Thomas, Manager of State and Federal Relations for CCM. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

Good afternoon, Senator Coleman, Representative Wallace, Members of the P&D Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about a couple of bills.

If I could just focus on the two regarding eminent domain. You have the detailed testimony before you. Obviously, eminent domain, as we see it, has been a long and fundamentally necessary tool for promoting the public interest.

We want to thank you all for, and this has been going on since August, really thinking about what you want to do and taking this thoughtful and deliberative approach.

We really appreciate that, because it has been a very difficult six, seven, eight months. I know it has been a challenge for the Committee.

We think it is worth remembering that the vast majority of cases involving the use of eminent domain are resolved leaving property owners feeling that they have been fairly compensated.

Further, eminent domain is an authority that is exercised with great care and considerable public scrutiny. It should be noted too that no municipality wants to remove its residents from their home.

When eminent domain is used, it is used grudgingly and as a last resort. CCM is always, at least especially since the Kelo case, has been for eminent domain reform.

In particular, we call for reform that modifies the State Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, reexamines the use of just compensation, and calls for greater transparency and accountability on the behalf of local officials, and also a procedure that requires reviewing or assessing of development or redevelopment plans over a period of time.

Specifically, I would like to talk about House Bill 5038. At this time with the bill, at least the way it is drafted, we cannot support it.

Sections of this Bill would severely restrict needed eminent domain authority, such as proposals to require two-thirds majority vote of the local legislative body to acquire any property and requiring that legislative bodies approve the taking of property on a parcel-by-parcel basis.

These proposals should be rejected because they are unduly restrictive. We want to say that we do appreciate the fact that there is some consideration given in this proposal to the state of affairs in certain municipalities.

That is addressed through the land value taxation provision contained in the bill. We also, again, as said before, we support a market value plus approach for owner-occupied residential properties acquired for eminent domain purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if my four minutes is up. I heard a, is it already?

REP. WALLACE: Please continue. Quickly.

RON THOMAS: Okay. Jim will continue. I just wanted, well, I'll just quickly go to the two-thirds majority part, where it requires that a two-thirds vote be for any purchase of real property for economic development.

Again, in the language it is not clear whether the two-thirds vote is of members present and voting or of the membership as a whole. In either case, we think it's not good public policy to pick and choose certain issues which a super majority vote is required.

For example, the power to levy taxes and expend public funds does not require a super majority vote at the local level. Further, the passage of capital punishment here at the state level did not require a super majority vote.

Again, I've got plenty of detail here contained in the written testimony. We just would appreciate the continued thoughtful approach. As you know, there are countless, several statutes that revolve around eminent domain.

We have to be careful in looking at it in that one statute might, revising one statute will have an impact on another.

We want to make sure that we keep eminent domain as a tool that municipalities can use with great consideration given to homeowners and ensuring that they are protected.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. A question, in addition to the super majority, did I also hear that CCM opposes the elected officials voting on a specific parcel?

RON THOMAS: Yeah, the parcel-by-parcel approach. We just think that it would take, I mean, that the approach could really stall the process for a considerable amount of time.

We just think that perhaps we are for there being some kind of direct impact or voting by a local legislative body, not referring it or deferring it rather to any sort of development corporation, but that they would be more front and center on it.

We would just like to work with you about how that would happen, that there would be a public vote that the citizens of the community could be active on and have some participation or impact on that process.

REP. WALLACE: I look forward to working with you on the bill further. Any other questions? Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO: I am sort of a little confused. If the argument is that the taking is economically prosperous for the municipality or the city, why would the two-thirds vote be an impediment if it's such a great idea that it's worth taking a home or a business?

Why would one be afraid of the two-thirds to sort of say that there is this overwhelming support for this plan? Why would that be such a bad thing?

RON THOMAS: Well, again, it goes into, this is an extremely important issue and, again, no one understands it perhaps better as an entity than municipalities who are involved in it on a day-to-day basis, beyond the people whose homes are affected.

We just think it's not good public policy to say what issues there's going to be a super majority vote required for when certain other issues that are fundamental and essential, you don't have that requirement for those.

SEN. FASANO: And I understand that position, but it's not uncommon. For instance, in zoning, if you do a zone change and a certain number of people object within that zone change, it requires a two-thirds vote by that Zoning Commission to perpetuate that zone change.

The point of that is basically we are doing something legislatively somewhat dramatic and therefore we need this overwhelming vote.

It seems to me, you know, it's almost following that same type of logic in that this is a huge change, the taking of a property, let's make sure that we are doing it for the right reasons.

This is a catch, if you would, to make sure that we have the issue properly in front of folks who understand the ramifications of taking people's homes, both in terms of how the rest of the community feels about it.

And if it's a great idea, there shouldn't be a problem convincing two-thirds of the legislative folks to go along with it.

RON THOMAS: Again, I am all for, we are all for some approach that ensures that municipalities have to go through even additional, they have gone through several checks and balances, but additional checks and balances.

The problem comes with, again, deciding on which, again, as I said before, which ones will be and which ones won't be.

Again, we would be happy to work with the Committee on trying to figure out something that doesn't allow, again, these are local elected officials, just like those of you at the State Capitol are.

There is accountability at the poll time for them too in terms of their actions. But certainly, we would like to work with you on figuring something out, whether if be greater accountability.

SEN. FASANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Representative Aman.

REP. AMAN: Yes, thank you very much for coming forward. I am questioning on the idea of an individual vote on each individual parcel. If I want to take what you said, hopefully not out of context, because you thought it would be awfully time-consuming to vote on each individual parcel.

Therefore, I would presume that you are saying that you would look for a city council to vote to say we will be able to take any parcel between Main Street and Broadway for the length of the town, would be the vote that you would see taken, rather than each individual. Am I interpreting what you said correctly?

RON THOMAS: I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to clarify that, because it certainly wasn't what I was talking about.

We were just saying that it could make it difficult if not impossible for a municipality to promote redevelopment of significant tracts of property. That's, I'm sorry if I appeared to say something different earlier.

REP. AMAN: Going back on that, I would presume and hopefully that the vast majority of parcels within any tract that you wanted to take for economic development would not be going through these proceedings.

They would be purchased just like any other parcel. So that you would be down to a few disputed parcels and, again, I am having trouble understanding why the disputed parcels would not take an individual vote.

Because up until that point, I've got to believe that there has been tremendous time and effort put in by both parties in trying to negotiate a settlement, and the reason it's going to this is that negotiations broke down and there was not a settlement.

And so I am trying to figure out why there would be that many parcels involved that they could not have the elected officials basically look at someone and say, yes, I am taking your property.

RON THOMAS: Well, again, you're right. Hopefully, under average circumstances there would just be a few parcels. That obviously is not the case all the time, but we would hope that, you know, there would be some resolution on most cases.

Again, I would say that we were thinking in terms of trying to find some opportunity to maximize it for people in the community to participate.

However, we do think that perhaps we could find some way that would allow people to participate but that wouldn't put added unnecessarily or unduly restrictions. But I think it's something that we would think about further.

REP. AMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman.

REP. WALLACE: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Bonnie Stewart, followed by Randolph Blackner.

BONNIE STEWART: Good afternoon. My name is Bonnie Stewart and I am Vice President of Government Affairs for the Connecticut Business and Industry Association.

I have submitted written testimony on House Bill 5038 but only on Section 26. I am going to talk about the tax provision at the very end of the bill.

CBIA has submitted written testimony that is detailed regarding the eminent domain provisions on both House Bill 5038 and Senate Bill 34. Unfortunately, the gentleman that covers that for CBIA is out of state today on training.

So if you've got any questions on that, I will pass them along or you can contact Eric Brown directly.

In terms of Section 26, CBIA is very concerned with this provision which authorizes municipalities to establish separate tax rates for real estate.

In particular, our concern has to do with various classification schemes. It's something that really makes it much easier for, or I should say expedient for local officials when they need extra revenue to treat one class of property very different than another.

Already, manufacturers in the State are treated differently than residents, or I should say businesses are treated differently than residents, because we pay property tax on machinery and equipment, etc., which makes it very difficult for Connecticut businesses to compete not only within the United States, but in the global economy.

So we have serious concerns there. We know that Pennsylvania has a similar provision but that some of the towns in Pennsylvania originally adopted it and then later repealed it because it did not work for their municipalities.

We feel that we really need to look at the whole issue comprehensively before you adopt any legislation to determine if this is the right way to accomplish development goals within the larger municipalities.

As it is now, we have concerns regarding brown fields in the state. You could have an issue where you have, for example, an innocent landowner who purchases their land feeling that they would like to develop it.

But they find out that the cleanup costs are cost-prohibitive, that they can't actually go forward with the development at that time. So you're going to tax them at a higher rate, making it more difficult for them to go and develop that property to begin with.

At this time, again, we would encourage you, if this is something that you are seriously considering, to look at a comprehensive study that determines is this the right policy for Connecticut.

Figure out what is the best way to accomplish your goals for developing that land. But at this time, we feel that the different classification system is really a step in the wrong direction and we would urge you to reject that measure.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Randolph Blackner, followed by Gordon Gibson.

RANDOLPH BLACKNER: Good afternoon, Representative Wallace, Members of the Planning and Development Committee. My name is Randolph Blackner and I am President of the Connecticut Farm Bureau and its 5,700 farm-family members.

You have copies of Farm Bureau's written testimony before you, as well as model legislation that Farm Bureau supports. I would just like to make a couple of comments on the issue of eminent domain.

One of the basic principles or beliefs of Farm Bureau is to be able to own private property and private property rights is a sacred cow of Farm Bureau, if you will pardon the pun, no pun intended.

When a farm is considered for taking, it quite often, if it's the whole farm, it's one thing, but one other consideration is if a part of a farm goes, is taken for eminent domain, it can render the rest of the farm a nonviable operation.

You are also interfering with the private individual's home at the same time in most cases. As I said, you have the written testimony before you. Thank you for your time. Any questions?

REP. WALLACE: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you. Gordon Gibson, followed by Robert Fromer.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Gibson had to leave for another meeting.

REP. WALLACE: Mr. Fromer, followed by Bill Ethier.

ROBERT FROMER: Hi, I have submitted two sets of testimony with respect to Raised Senate Bill 34 and Raised House Bill 5038. I want to bring to your attention certain issues which have been missed in this legislation.

One of them is a constitutional issue. In the case, for example, in New London, and I have a copy of the New London City Charter which I will put into the record on eminent domain, New London has provisions in its Charter for eminent domain.

It has provisions for the creation or processing eminent domain claims through a board of compensation. The State Statute 48-6 called Eminent Domain Statute or title also has provisions for the processing of eminent domain.

I brought this to the attention to the Director of Law on a couple of occasions and also the Institute for Justice. The fact of the matter is, is that the Town Attorney said that he could use either the City Charter or the State Statute on eminent domain.

But Connecticut has home rule, which is Article 10 of the State Constitution, which says that after 1969, you can't create, the Legislature can't create any Statute that supersedes home rule or charter provisions.

So in the case of New London, there is nothing in the Statute of 48-6 that has the magic words notwithstanding any provision of any special act or city charter.

Therefore, the New London City Charter on eminent domain should prevail. The residents in New London who are subject to that taking and have statements of compensation before the court have a very good case on constitutional grounds to void that taking.

This issue has not been addressed in this Statute, so the creation of these statutes will not change the existing situation unless you put in the words notwithstanding any provision of any special act.

Now, I gave you an example in Section 8-2C for planning and zoning commissions where those words are used. The other things that I wanted to deal with are the definitions.

It's good that you are trying to change these statutes, but there are still some certain definitions that are completely missing and have created a considerable amount of the problem, like the term blight is not defined.

And I lay out in my testimony some of the other terms that I think need to be addressed. One other term that has created a lot of confusion with the courts is in Section 8-186, the term unified the land is established and stated, but there is no definition for it.

And it is not used in any of the other Statutes, such as Chapter 130 and Chapter 588L. Now, I think the creation and office of ombudsman is a tremendous waste of another bureaucracy. I don't think it's necessary.

Also, the grant for the cost of litigation, you don't need to establish another grant program. I give you a simple way that this could be remediated without creating a grant program with OPM.

That is to create in the Statute the requirement that a court hearing an appeal on eminent domain shall award cost, two-thirds of the cost for litigation to the property owner irrespective of who wins. Then you don't have to set up another grant program.

I think it would behoove everybody to take Chapter 130, 132 and 588L and combine it, integrate it, and consolidate it into one statute called Economic Development Act.

Because redevelopment, manufacturing assistance, all these other terms of economic development are still just economic development. And you have a cluster and a mosaic and a mix-match and you are piecemealing the process of development.

It is much more effective and efficient to have one statute. Also, the statutes that you are creating, there are no regulations to implement them.

Now, for example, Chapter 132, for municipal development, the Department of Economic and Community Development has regulations. But those regulations were created when that Department was two separate departments and has not been updated.

But for Chapter 588L, there are no regulations. That's why creating one statute and creating regulations to implement it would simplify and render the statute more harmonious for everyone in the state.

One of the other issues that I have been involved with, because I have been involved with this case in New London since 1998, is the State Demolition Code.

And I think if you are going to change the statute on eminent domain, very often eminent domain is used as a basis to demolish structures.

And I think in your provisions where you said reasonable changes to the development plan, I think you should look at the words, and I have given you these words in my written testimony, feasible and proven alternatives to demolition.

Senator Fasano asked a prior testifier whether the current process of eminent domain is fair. Well, in New London's case, it wasn't.

And I have sufficient evidence, which I won't go into at this point in time, I have already provided that evidence in prior testimony before this Committee, that the process in New London was anything but fair, was predetermined.

REP. WALLACE: Mr. Fromer, if you could summarize your remarks, please.

ROBERT FROMER: Sure. Oh, one other comment that I wanted to make was the giving of 150% of fair market value. You are actually defeating your purpose.

Because if you look at the 50% above fair market value and in that 50% above the 100% fair market value you are including all the costs, when you factor in inflation over, say, 15 years, assuming that you have 3% inflation, that 150% above market value is now down to 100%.

So if you instead say it's 150% and in addition the court or whoever is doing the taking has to also pay separately all the costs associated with it, then it's an effective 150%. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? No? Thank you. Next, we will here from Bill Ethier, followed by Joseph Wactowski.

BILL ETHIER: Thank you, Representative Wallace and Members of the Planning and Development Committee. For the record, my name is Bill Ethier. I am the Executive Vice President of the Homebuilders Association of Connecticut.

We have about 1,300 member firms throughout the state. I would like to address, obviously, the two eminent domain bills, but I would first like to very briefly and generally explain our position on the issue.

As you know, we represent developers. And a number of my members may be the beneficiaries of economic development or redevelopment plans. They may be the contractors and the builders involved in doing that.

But we have long been, both at the national level where I worked for over ten years as their litigation counsel, and at the state level, long been stalwart defenders of property rights.

We weighed the issue internally in our organization between the developers' interest and the property rights interest. And it didn't take long for us to come down firmly on the side of property owners.

So generally speaking, we believe that the rights of property owners deserve more protection in Connecticut. We applaud your efforts in drafting these bills.

And I'd like to turn to them and talk about some of the specific issues that may or may not have come up, although some I know have been discussed as I have been sitting here.

First, on Raised Senate Bill 34, the two-thirds requirement to have a vote of the Legislative Body to approve a condemnation for economic development, in our view, that misses the point of constitutional rights.

I think we would align ourselves with the comments made earlier by Representative Drew that, you know, our rights as individuals under the Constitution by definition only need to be defended when you are opposed to the majority rule, majority rules.

So when you have a majority of the public essentially relying on them to defend your individual rights, that is antithetical to the purpose of the Constitution. And to us, it doesn't matter whether the majority is 51% or 67%.

We think that the majority vote is probably a good planning process to make sure that, as Senator Fasano said, it's a pretty drastic measure to take someone's property, so you probably do want to make sure you get them a super majority vote on going forward.

But don't rest on that as any kind of protection for individual rights, because it's not.

Another issue that we would point out in Raised Senate Bill 34, and these issues are also in the other bill as well, because it's similar language if not identical, is the measure of compensation, the 150% of fair market value.

We don't believe that's an appropriate way to go. It's arbitrary. What we think you should do is force an award of 100% of fair market value but also recognize that there are other types of value that can come in in a just compensation award.

It's not always fair market value. But in addition to that, we would require that the property owner be paid not two-thirds but full amount of their legal costs and their legal fees.

These are truly innocent people that didn't ask to be, you know, involved in this. So the government, the condemning authority should be paying their legal fees, their cost, and reasonable relocation expenses.

I do want to point out quickly that there could be just a constitutional problem, the way you've drafted the bill, a couple of constitutional problems.

I think it's clear from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts that the measure of just compensation is in the purview of the courts. You do not have the authority to set what just compensation is.

So in your drafting, but you do have the authority to give more than just compensation. So just in your drafting, you can set out payment of just compensation, but then make sure that you word it in a way that in addition to just compensation, we are going to, you know, force the payment of attorney's fees, whatever you decide to be paid.

Another constitutional problem that I see in Senate Bill 34 is the way you have defined condemnations for public use and condemnations for economic development.

As you know, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the similar provision in the State Constitution allows governments to take property for public use.

You do not have the authority as a Legislative Body to extend that beyond public use. Again, it's a definitional issue.

What I would suggest is that if you are going to allow any kind of economic development condemnation, that it be defined as a subset of a public use condemnation.

By separating it out, I think you have created a constitutional problem. I heard the timer go off. I have also some very specific comments on the other bill. I have provided you my written testimony on those, so I encourage you to look at that.

We have also, I attached to Raised Senate Bill 34 a letter or memo that I sent to this Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee back in September, which much more detail lays out where our policy would be, where we would recognize economic development as a legitimate use for condemnation but under very limited, strict criteria.

Our policy would not allow New London Development Authority to do what it did to those property owners. So I encourage you to look at that as well. I would be more than happy to answer any questions.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Question I had on the legal fees, paying the legal fees. Of course, we had to set up a grant program to get the money to the person contesting the taking.

My concern and my thinking there is if we do 100%, what's to stop the person going through the eminent domain process and the attorney from just racking up endless fees.

I felt it was important to have kind of some, I say some restraint. But I want the applicant to be invested in the process as well. That's why I'm not sure if 100% is the way to go, because what will stop, you know, just suits ad nauseam?

BILL EHTIERS: I understand your concern. I think what would stop it would be the decision of the judge. Rely on the judge to make that determination on what are the reasonable attorney's fees for the property owner.

So that, you know, the property owner just doesn't submit a bill for whatever, you know, and that's it. But it's rely on the judge to make that determination. But an arbitrary two-thirds of somebody's cost?

Well, that means that the property owner who didn't ask, again, to be put into this situation has to come up with a third of the legal fees and costs. And they are truly innocent. That's, in my view, an unjust burden on the property owner.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Joseph Wactowski, followed by Tim Hollister.

JOSEPH WACTOWSKI: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity to speak. The purpose of today's hearing, as I understand it, is public input into two Bills concerning eminent domain, as well as several other bills, of course.

But specifically, I am addressing Senate Bill 34 and House Bill 5038. I won't bore you with a long dissertation on every line of these bills. The bottom line is that I believe neither Bill is acceptable.

Why? Because neither bill truly protects private property. They do do their fancy dance, but in the end they still seize citizens' homes and businesses for other than municipal use, its traditional use.

Under both bills, after an extra hearing or two and the tossing of an extra 40 pieces of silver, the home and the business owner still have their property torn from them.

Special interests and the heady dreams of overly ambitious mayors, state, town, and city officials still steamrollers over the regards of and rights of the individual.

Have we become China? Here's a suggestion. Go to some of the old schools in the area. Search through the basements and find some of the old history books. Find things with a heading like the dream and promise of America.

As John Adams said, our second President, private property is sacred. When that falls, America falls. There was a reason he said it, and you can find his reasons. I won't go into a long dissertation on that.

Find out why he said it. You will have to find the old books because that dream has become corrupted today by greedy developers and dishonest politicians. Do you know any? I do, believe me. I have done a little investigation.

You will find most of the voters out there know most of them as well. You are not fooling anyone. People see these Bills for exactly what they are, power grabs, money grabs, ambition grabs, nothing pretty at all.

There was an excellent bill presented to this Legislature by the Castle Coalition. I notice that it hasn't gone anywhere. Why is that not a surprise? Not enough money and power passed around, perhaps. No, that could never be.

This state has a lot of problems. It is the highest-taxed State in the Union. It has severe transportation problems. It is business-unfriendly. We just lost another business this morning, in case you weren't paying attention.

And now you want to compound those problems by making this state a property grabber as well, very unfriendly to business and homeowners. Are you out of your minds? Once again, you are not fooling anyone.

This is a hot issue with people out there. It's really hot, believe me. I get around the state a lot. It's not going to go away. It's not going to be settled in any other way eventually except for the betterment of the homeowner and the business owner.

Do you really think there is no other way to develop this state? Have you honestly looked at the Utah and Minnesota solutions? I think not. But what's worse, I don't think you are thinking at all.

Once again, I mention John Adams. He took part in a little party called the American Revolution, whose slogan was no taxation without representation.

Well, you are not honestly representing the people's interests here. And we will make sure that's remembered at the voting booth. Virtually every one of the other 49 states has either passed or is in the process of passing real property protection.

What is wrong with Connecticut, one of the original 13 colonies? These present bills not only spit on our American heritage, but they strip present Connecticut citizens of their rights and their property.

That's a shame and a crime. It will not be allowed. Do your job. You are supposed to be here to protect the people. Protect them. If you don't, then you don't belong in the positions you are in.

One other thing I am going to add on my own. I noticed that there were several officials, city planners, government officials here saying how efficient government and cities, you know, could operate if they could just be allowed to get what they needed when they needed it.

There have been a lot of political systems in the world that are extremely efficient. They don't seem to do as much as they could for the individuals in that society. I don't want to live in a society that is that efficient.

I want to live in a society where the rights of the individual are upheld. I would hope you would worry about your own future and the future of your children under those circumstances. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO: You know, in listening to your testimony, I want you to be assured of a couple of things.

First of all, there is nobody around this table at P&D or Judiciary, who is taking a look at this Bill, or, in fact, the entire Legislature who is taking the matter that you are raising without serious contemplation of any action that we take.

And we've got to look at all sides. That why, as Chairman Wallace suggested, this is the fourth public hearing that we have had, and I don't know how many Judiciary has had, another four I suppose. It is a difficult issue.

And I take issue with some of the things that you have said in your testimony because it makes it sound like we are headed towards a direction that is not in the best interest of the constituencies or the State of Connecticut.

And I can tell you that that is not true. The proposals out there are proposals. There are various issues.

There are a lot of different issues raised by municipalities who are running into very difficult economic times and are looking for help to try to take care of certain areas of their towns or cities which have deteriorated and how they can better improve that.

One tool that they like using is eminent domain. So we have to take that into consideration, and we have to take in the risk of people losing their homes into consideration. I have been a strong advocate for not taking homes.

But on the other hand, I have to listen, just as everyone else does, to all the issues. And this is a tough, tough matter for the State of Connecticut.

I take issue with the fact that you seem to be suggesting that we are not taking it in earnest, because that is the furthest thing from the truth, and particularly in this Committee, but I would say for the Legislature at large.

Not only do we talk about it in this type of forum, we talk about it amongst ourselves, in the hallways, at lunch, wherever we can, because we're trying to find the right answer.

So I appreciate the comments, maybe not the tone or the language for which they're presented. The frustration I appreciate, but not so much the tone or the language. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

JOSEPH WACTOWSKI: I would just make a comment about that, if I could. There were six bills originally. At least two of them protected individual property rights much better than these two bills.

I have been here for nearly every hearing. And why is it that just these two bills which, when you read them, don't really protect the property owner. They may, as I said, throw them a few more pieces of silver, but they do not protect the property owner.

Why is it out of the six presented, and there were two that gave really good protection to the individual property owner, why aren't they here today? Why are we just considering these two?

In my humble opinion, gentlemen, this is all a show, that when we do pass a bill, people's homes are still going to be in jeopardy, small businesses are still going to be in jeopardy.

And there's really nothing the individual can do about it. And if that's frustration, that is as it is.

SEN. FASANO: I don't mean to belabor this, Mr. Chairman, but just to point out that these are bills that are up here. We had subject matter hearings. We are bringing up the bills that are now in front of you.

They are going to be discussed at meetings after we take more input. The bills undoubtedly are going to change. There's bits and pieces we agree with. There's bits and pieces none of us can have a consensus on.

But that's what this process is about. Even if it comes out in a bill that you still think is unfair, it still will be debated at the Senate. It still will be debated at the House. And then the Governor will finally have to pass off.

It is a long, involved process. This is just the beginning, and there will be much more to this matter, I can assure you. And I don't believe that the bills that you see in front of you are the final versions of any of the bills that are going to come up.

I think you're going to see it tinkered with, toyed with, taking all the comments of the public, both from constituency and towns, to work on something that can happen.

So, yes, there were other bills. Some of the essence of those other bills are plugged into this. Some other new information came in. But that's just the way this process goes. People say it's like making sausage, you don't see what it looks like.

That's how it happens. And you've got to try to build a consensus in this building, because I can tell you right now, you don't build a consensus in the building, no bill passes.

It's just the way the fact of life is up in this building. You have to build a consensus. And that's what we are trying to do.

And there's a lot of interests that we are juggling not only around this building, but at the Senate floor and the House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. WALLACE: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Tim Hollister, followed by Michael Dudko.

TIM HOLLISTER: Thank you, Representative Wallace, Committee Members. I am an attorney at Shipman and Goodwin. I represent both municipalities and property owners in eminent domain matters.

While it was snowing on Sunday, I took the two Raised Bills and my Statute book and I read them through as thoroughly as I could.

And what I mostly want to say is I tried to read them first from the perspective of a town or city attorney and then from the perspective of a property owner.

I have given you about a ten-page letter as extensive written testimony in response to your request, Representative Wallace. I tried to really concentrate on the text of the two raised bills.

There is no way I can really summarize that in four minutes, so let me just give you the most basic highlights.

I am going to be a little more definitive than Bill Ethier and say that there are, although there are good intentions and good ideas in these bills, there are several provisions that I believe are unconstitutional, specifically the definitions of just compensation and of public use.

There are several provisions that are simply inconsistent with our existing law and practice of eminent domain.

There are quite a few definitional problems that need to be addressed. And my own view, and again, this is from having worked sort of both sides of the aisle, if you will, on this issue, is that 150% premium compensation raises many more problems than it solves.

And I think there are alternative ways to deal with that. So I only want to address specifically two points. The first public speaker was from the FOI Commission.

To make Connecticut law consistent with the very clear warning that we got in the Kelo case from the U.S. Supreme Court, we need to reform the Freedom of Information Act, which is two things.

I specifically in my comments suggested what the drafting should be. Eminent domain should not be able to be discussed in an executive session.

And Section 1-210 subsection B subsection 7, which currently allows a municipal agency or any condemning authority to shield documents related to eminent [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1B to Tape 2A.]

--suggested to draft it is to make it clear that documents related to eminent domain may not be severed.

This comes out, among other things, of a specific case in the Town of Hamden, where a property was condemned ostensibly for a fire station, in a case that my office was involved in.

Well, we asked for the documents, how did you pick this site for a fire station, and were told you can't have any of the documents because they were protected FOI.

I think that is a clear violation of the most basic right to procedural due process. You have a right to know what the government is doing and why it is doing it. And this is, I think, a simple fix.

Second thing, and last thing I want to point out specifically, is something that is not in either draft that I really think should be there.

Under the existing Section 8-129, we still have what is known in the trade as a quick-take provision.

From the date that a governmental agency decides to condemn property until the date that they can record on the land records a document that's a vesting of title can occur in as little as 12 days.

Now, there could be a long public hearing process about the redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan could sit on the shelf for two or three years while the municipality tries to get the money together, but on a Tuesday night there could be a vote to take a specific parcel.

Twelve days later, that title could vest in the municipality. My point is property owners have defenses to eminent domain, 12 days is way too short to allow them to raise those defenses.

My recommendation would be simply take 12 days and make it at least 30, more likely 45. That would give a very significant protection to property owners that does not exist today.

The last thing I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is in response to the previous speaker. If House Bill 5038 as raised were adopted, it would be one of the most protective Bills of property owners in the entire country.

I just can't buy into the statement that was made just previously to me that the two Bills that we have don't protect.

House Bill 5038 would change eminent domain as we know it in the most substantial ways by preventing eminent domain for economic development and wherever there's a dwelling near it.

I can't think of a more substantial change. So that is real change that is on the table in front of the Committee. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Michael Dudko, followed by Mary Wilford Campbell.

MICHAEL DUDKO: Michael J. Dudko of Bristol. I am part of a family in Bristol. I went through eminent domain. I consider myself a victim of eminent domain. Craig Miner, who was here earlier, he is a councilman from Bristol and he was referring to what happened to our family.

I did pass some extensive material last August at some hearings. You notice some of the details of what happened to us. The City of Bristol took 30 of 38 acres from our family that we held for 60 years.

I am just recapping some things. Just mentioned about Mr. Miner's comment, I don't believe it's handled well on a local level. There needs to be protection for citizens on the upper levels of the government.

I have even approached Mr. Larson, Congressman Larson on this, who doesn't believe, he believes it should remain on a state level, should even continue to be active on the federal change.

Something came up this summer that is quite significant with the value of our property. We were able to save 7.76 acres of the property because it was adjacent to a condominium development.

One of the planning commissions thought it would be too close, where kids would get mowed over. The City took 30, took 30.

The City, and I'm very grateful to my grandparents back 60 years ago in 1939, a rough time, with five children, my grandfather and grandmother took the risk of this longtime investment for the family.

We received $1.75 million from the City. The courts came out with a $58,000 an acre figure. We have evidence, we had offers that it was worth $100,000.

That was part of appraisals, our appraisals. This summer within the family we had to make the decision, are we scared about this happening again. And we've got 13 grandchildren. Three of the four elderly siblings above me are in their 80's.

So some of the responsibilities have gone down to us 13 grandchildren. We decided, we had an offer for that remaining land, 7.7 acres, we were offered $1.6 million. This shows on the real market what the real market value, if you go out and have a buyer in the free market system.

The City of Bristol takes 30 acres for $1.75 million. We are able to sell that 7.7 acres for $1.6 million. You do not get fair market value. We realized this right from the beginning.

I don't believe the judges are qualified. We had a three-panel judge of elderly judges. I don't even believe they went out to see the property. They were obligated to. I pressured my attorney to see if they actually did.

I don't believe they even went out to see the property. They took the easy way. They are not qualified to judge what real estate is worth.

REP. WALLACE: Mr. Dudko, do you have any remarks on the Bills before you?

MICHAEL DUDKO: This what specifically it says, something about getting 150% of free market value. We are getting 350% of fair market value from what the City determined the court system.

Going out by yourself marketing it, we are getting three and a half times what our town government took from us. And I do regard it as an issue of, and I know we don't like to speak of this, but it felt, we knew this from the beginning.

What was talked about from the City officials, we didn't hear figures that were realistic. It was stealing in a way. We used that term. My elderly, they were in their 70's at the time, they knew they were not getting what it's worth.

Besides the issue of don't even take this at all, you don't even end up getting treated fairly on what something's worth. We didn't hear that from the beginning.

Economic development, I don't think eminent domain used in this way where it is going to third parties is necessary. Jodi Rell just talked about there are other things we can do in this State to improve the business atmosphere.

I think try to improve our transportation system, maybe lower the tax on machinery and the goods and businesses. There are other avenues to go to make business conducive again in Connecticut.

Don't rely on this, this is easy for local governments to do, to degenerate. They end up with the wealth. In today's term, I don't mind using this, this term has been used the past 30 years, you know, we felt like we got ripped off.

When the article came out in the newspaper in November, you know, it went through the planning commissions and everything, the reporter wrote it from that perspective. Thirty acres, the City got a buy, $1.75 million.

You go on the free market, only seven acres, you get $1.6 million. There is something wrong. There is something wrong.

REP. WALLACE: Mr. Dudko, there are several people left to speak. If you could summarize your remarks, please.

MICHAEL DUDKO: As I said, just emphasize that there are other ways of improving the business atmosphere of Connecticut. You don't have to do it this way.

All the work you do on a home and property, I put up a lot of insulation in that old house, got paid nothing for it.

All the work you do on stone walls, keeping the grounds, while my cousin got laid off, he cut all these pine trees one whole summer while he was laid off. We got repaid nothing for that.

A lot of people put a lot of work in a lifetime into a home and have it disappear. We didn't even get paid for the 100-year-old house. That was like, they said worthless, you know, we're not going to pay you nothing for the house.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you for your comments. Are there any questions?

MICHAEL DUDKO: One thing I just want to add. There's a big discrepancy. Don't think that, some people say that you are getting, well, you are getting paid, you're getting paid. We experienced getting, we did not get a fair market value and it has come out to be, we proved it. We proved it.

Among our families, our family had the right to sell the property, my cousins. Family has the right to determine the future of the property. I don't believe the government should have that strong a power to determine what a family owns. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you for your testimony. Next, we will hear from Mary Wilford Campbell, followed by David Cameron.

MARY WILFORD CAMPBELL: Good afternoon, Representative Wallace and Senator Fasano, Senator Harris and other Legislators here this afternoon. I am Mary Wilford Campbell.

Today, I am representing Northwest Connecticut Property Owners Association, which is a small rental property owner group in western Connecticut.

We are very appreciative of your efforts in raising some bills on the eminent domain issues that I am here to talk about today, which are Senate Bill 34 and then House Bill 5038.

Generally speaking is what I will speak today because it is early in the process. We think these bills and others that may be raised during the Session have work that will, that are a work in progress. We understand that.

And I do, however, want to emphasize appreciation for getting the ball rolling on the topic, as well as what hearings have been around the state with both your Committee and other committees.

Generally speaking, we are, our group is adamant about property owner rights and about the fact that whether it be owner-occupied or not, that property rights issues involve, whether it's a homeowner that is in their own home, it is also an investment in real estate.

A lot of their assets and everything are tied up in that, and they should be able to enjoy the appreciation as well as an investor on property.

And of that nature, that property owners be treated pretty much equally whether they are rental owners or owner-occupied on eminent domain issues because of the fact that, as far as getting the worth of their property or of their business that may be located at the property.

And we do appreciate the efforts of an attorney firm like Shipman and Goodwin and also the Homebuilders Association and realtors and other organizations that are involved in the process. Thank you for your time today.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Next, we will hear from David Cameron and Susan Kniep.

DAVID CAMERON: Good afternoon, Chairman Wallace, Senator Fasano and Senator Harris. My name is David Cameron. I am a professor of political science at Yale University. I reside in New Haven, which has experienced a great deal of eminent domain taking in recent years.

I appeared before you last year on two occasions dealing with a planned development matter pertaining to the City of New Haven. I want to express my gratitude to you for your support of that effort at that time.

Today, I am appearing before you to urge that you propose legislation that would amend Section 8-193 of Chapter 132, the Municipal Development Statute, so as to prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire property for private development.

It seems to me that's the essential problem in this case and the essential issue that has to be addressed by any legislation. In my written comments that I submitted to you, I have discussed very briefly the way the court defines public use these days.

As you know, Justice Stevens in his majority opinion stated that the case turned on the question of whether the city's development plan, New London's development plan, served a public purpose.

I'm not a lawyer, but I happen to think that the Supreme Court both in Connecticut and in the United States erred in their reasoning as to why the takings in New London constituted a public use in the sense of a public purpose.

And I urge you to read the minority opinion in the Connecticut decision, written by Justices Zarella, Katz and Chief Justice Sullivan to see that the essential argument that they pose is that a plan and an intention of public benefits is not in fact the reality public benefits.

And I think that's an important issue that you have to keep in mind in this legislation as you see more fine-tuning in regard to the plan that would be proposed and the stipulations of showing of benefits and so forth.

As flawed as the Supreme Court majority's thinking about the meaning of public purpose and public use in Kelo was, in one respect the decision can't be faulted.

Noting that Section 8-193 of Chapter 132 specifically authorizes a development agency with the approval of a local legislative body to acquire property by eminent domain, the majority pointed out, quote, nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power, unquote.

It pointed out that many states have already imposed public use requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline, either in their constitutions or in state eminent domain statutes.

I urge you to follow, as you are attempting to do today and have been for some months, follow the implicit suggestion of the Supreme Court majority.

I believe the simplest and most direct way to do that is as Representative Ward said earlier this afternoon, to amend Section 8-193 to prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire property for private development.

The uses and purposes for which property could be acquired by eminent domain should be limited to projects that are publicly owned, used by the general public, common carriers of public utilities or involved in remediation of blighted areas.

And within the allowed uses and purposes, the taking of residences should be limited only to those which constitute health and safety hazards and are uninhabitable and beyond repair.

In other words, any occupied residence would not be, could not be taken. That would be the suggestion that I would make.

Now, in the two bills today, there are many issues that are presented in the two bills, but it seems to be that there is one absolutely important provision in House Bill 5038.

That is in Line 396, which prohibits the taking of any parcel on which a dwelling unit is located. That is absolutely central. If that remains in, this will be very good legislation.

If that is stricken, then this legislation is not going to prevent another New London. And it seems to me that, at the end of the day, that's the issue that is before you. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Any questions? I have two questions. Let's start with one. First question is what about a commercial property and taking that by eminent domain for economic development?

The thinking there is commercial property is investment property and it doesn't seem to have to me the same emotional feel as a person's home, whether that be owner-occupied or renter-occupied. What are your thoughts on commercial?

DAVID CAMERON: Well, I think that's right. I think the fact that it's a home that is being taken is, as you know, there was a political firestorm after the Kelo decision throughout the country.

You heard earlier today the emotional intensity of an issue when it involves a home. But I would oppose the use of eminent domain for any private development, because it seems to me what eminent domain does, the essential point is that it deprives one party of the bargaining power that it would otherwise have.

And you heard that with the man who had just had his 30 acres taken in Bristol, that eminent domain is a way to essentially say to one party in a possible transaction you have no bargaining power, you cannot come into the market and deal with that person, that private developer who may want to upgrade that property and put in something else there, a Wal-Mart instead of a gas station or whatever.

And it is for that reason that I think this 150% compensation is also problematic, because it is arbitrary, as one of the previous speakers mentioned.

The point is that any eminent domain is depriving one of the parties in what should be a market transaction when it involves private development, whether it's homes or industrial businesses, of that person's or that entity's bargaining power.

And it seems to me that you are putting the government on the side of one party in that exchange.

And from my point of view, it's just a much cleaner way to deal with the issue if you say, okay, if you want to put in a Wal-Mart there instead of a gas station, you've got to talk to the owner of the gas station and cut a deal with them and reach an agreement as to what the price is, rather than taking it from that person and then selling it or leasing it for $1 a year or whatever governments often do to the other property owner.

So I realize that the industrial uses, business uses is much less a motive. We don't have the intensity of feeling about property being taken for an industry if it's already being used for a commercial purpose.

We don't associate that with our home, which has enormous emotional, and it should, emotional, it's a very intense issue for those who are threatened.

But I would, I think, extend this to all, any transactions. And I would think the best way to legislate would be to simply prohibit the use of eminent domain for private economic development.

Which means have to specify very clearly what public uses are in the way that I said on page three of my testimony. And I think if that's done, then this problem could be addressed in a way that the citizens of the state would find acceptable.

REP. WALLACE: My second question is something that I just want to make sure that the Committee hears and that I keep track of myself. But in terms of a dwelling unit, should eminent domain be able to be implemented if the dwelling unit is not legally zoned and permitted?

DAVID CAMERON: If the residential dwelling unit is not, is what, in a business zone?

REP. WALLACE: No, there are many municipalities and some of the more urban and suburban probably, there are illegal apartments, homes illegally subdivided. If the dwelling unit is not legal, should that property then be subject to eminent domain?

DAVID CAMERON: I suppose I would revert to sort of a legalistic view that it would depend on the ownership, that ultimately you are talking about ownership and I just don't know how you, that's a complicated issue, obviously. I would have to give that some thought.

It's a complicated issue. I was involved in a, testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a major case of eminent domain in New Haven involving a school in which over 100 people lost their homes, the Prince Welch School.

Ended up being a U.S. Federal Court case. And there were many people who lost their residences. They happened to live in apartments. There no doubt was some, there were people there who perhaps were illegal residents in the sense that you have spoken.

As a matter of fact, they did lose their residence. They did lose the place they lived, even if they weren't owners. So the impact of eminent domain on a residential property can affect more than just the owner, I guess is what you're saying.

Beyond that, I'm not sure. That's something that I think someone with a law degree would have to evaluate.

REP. WALLACE: Unfortunately, it's us that's going to make the decision, but some of us may have law degrees, I guess.

Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Ray Schwartz, followed by Neil Oldham. I'm sorry, Susan Kniep. Got too fast with my red pen there.

SUSAN KNIEP: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Kniep and I am President of the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations. I thank you for holding this forum today, as you have in the past, and certainly look forward to future participations with you.

As much as taxpayers decry property taxes, there is no tax-related issue that has drawn as much public outcry as the issue of eminent domain.

A man's home is his castle, and it's not the bricks and mortar but the heart and soul of families which government is trampling on when they take possession of private property from one and they give it to another.

I have looked at the legislation before you and I would state that it does not prohibit, emphatically I state, it does not prohibit the transfer of property from one private property owner to another based on financial gain.

It does not protect private property owners or businesses from those who are richer and more powerful from taking possession of what is rightfully theirs.

As eminent domain affects every man, woman, and child now and in the future, this issue should not be determined by a vote of the Legislature, but instead by a vote of the public.

And I am here to ask you today that we reflect upon the fact that on November, in November of 2006, this Legislature is mandated to place before the voters of Connecticut the following question, shall there be a constitutional convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State.

If the majority of Connecticut citizens vote in the affirmative, within one year, the General Assembly must assemble a convention. Proposed amendments or revisions to our State Convention must then be submitted to Connecticut voters at referendum.

I respectfully request that you, as Members of this Body and as Members of the General Assembly at large, support the citizens of our State in incorporating an amendment to our Constitution to guarantee us the right, to guarantee our property rights, and to prohibit anyone in power or influence from confiscating our property based on financial gain.

Our state does not afford its citizens the right to initiative and referendum, so those who may be watching this program being aired today need to understand that this is perhaps the most important and significant issue as it relates to your responsibility in November of 2006 to allow the voters to determine if they wish to open up the Constitution and address this or any other issue.

But we specifically are looking to address the issue of eminent domain. I would like to respond to your query, the query of the Chairman of this Board as it relates to illegal property.

There are many properties in the State of Connecticut, in all the 169 towns, that are designated as non-conforming use. They are not illegal in a sense. And I assume that is what you are referring to, as non-conforming use. Am I correct in that? No?

REP. WALLACE: No, you are not.

SUSAN KNIEP: Okay. Would you help me understand then what you are referring to?

REP. WALLACE: Sure. That would be an apartment that doesn't have [inaudible] occupancy, it may be a home that's illegally subdivided and not permitted. That's what I was postulating.

SUSAN KNIEP: Okay. So you were not speaking to the issue of non-conforming use, because if you were and this legislation or any proposed legislation were to address that issue, you would be affecting a number of homeowners within the State of Connecticut.

I also ask that you recognize that redevelopment is the precursor to eminent domain and it's a very big business.

It enriches developers, lobbyists, attorneys, consultants and the special interests aligned with government officials who pass laws which undermine our rights.

Elected public officials yield their responsibilities to quasi-public agencies which are financed by taxpayer dollars and which have limited accountability to the public. And there are conflicts among you.

I would refer specifically to Senator Bill Finch, who represents Bridgeport, and Monroe, and Trumbull. And he has frequently appeared before your Commission, espousing the virtues of eminent domain.

I don't know who else within the Legislature is employed by agencies such as this, which rely upon state taxpayers' dollars to exist and whose salaries are paid in portion, if not all, by state taxpayer dollars.

We are in the realm of an ethics issue where we are trying to change the ethics of our state. Certainly, those elected officials who are in such a situation should not be allowed to participate in the types of forums that you have today and as you debate this issue.

Further, I had brought to your attention as it relates to redevelopment in East Hartford and the New London Development Corporation. I think I have brought this up every time that I have appeared before you.

And it is the process and it is the manner in which public dollars are used. I have asked and am going to ask again for this Body to determine if redevelopment agencies who receive either state or local taxpayers' dollars can use that money to buy stock in shell corporations.

Those are corporations which have no assets. I would think that that would be illegal, and yet that is being done and has been done.

I respectfully ask again, as I have in the past, that a legal opinion be sought by Attorney Blumenthal to determine whether or not that is a continued practice among all towns and/or the state and if it should cease. Thank you very much.

And again, I would reinforce our position that we are hoping to have the issue of eminent domain drafted within the Constitution to absolutely cement our rights and to prohibit the Legislature from enacting legislation that fails to protect our rights from anyone taking our property, confiscating our property through a government agency just simply because they can increase the grand list. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Any questions? Senator Harris.

SEN. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have actually a comment. I appreciate your comments. They are well-taken.

All of us up here, those that are not here now, those that will read the written testimony both on this Committee and the entire General Assembly are listening to what you and others have to say.

I just want to address the idea that you raised about Senator Finch, because you made a statement that could be actually dangerous in some ways to our citizen democracy and our volunteer, we have actually a citizen Legislature.

We are not professionals. We actually, most of us sacrifice a lot in our employment and other sides to serve in this Body.

And while all of us have to decide at times whether or not to recuse ourselves from votes because of conflict of interest, and that is a very real decision, we all at times get input on different issues that we are professionally involved in.

In the case of Senator Finch, as you know, he has been very open about his position, what he does for a living. And he is offering a point of view based upon his experience in that job.

Now given that all the facts, where he comes from and everything else, is on the table, I think it would be dangerous to say as you did that he shouldn't be allowed to participate in the public participation. I don't remember your exact piece.

It's not the voting that you were talking about. You were talking about the hearings and the forum that we've had so far.

I, personally, would like to hear what everybody has to say on it and, realizing where they are coming from, be able to, like any adult or child would, be able to weigh their credibility, weigh their interest, and then make an informed decision.

So while I appreciate what you have to say, just be careful about saying that he shouldn't be able to speak about something.

SUSAN KNIEP: If I may respond to your comments. I believe personally that Mr. Finch should, that there are conflict issues and there are ethical issues. And I intend to ask the Ethics Commission for a ruling on that matter.

Now that, and I know that a ruling had been sought in 2004 and that was sought by the attorney representing, I believe it was the Senate Democrats.

We are in a new era today and it is my interpretation or my impression, and perhaps I am wrong, that this General Assembly is doing all that it can to close loopholes and to enact strong ethics laws and prevent conflicts of interest.

I believe this to be a conflict of interest. I intend to seek a legal opinion or an opinion from the Ethics Commission. I have already spoken with them on this matter. So I am sorry, I do not agree with you, but I thank you for your comments.

SEN. HARRIS: And you have every right to seek that opinion. Again, you said it was actually done internally. And I am not questioning that right, and I am not questioning that we shouldn't be zealous on protecting against conflict of interest.

But the conflict tends to come in, and this is just where I'm cautioning the statement, when you are going to take a vote on something and actually help make a decision.

The notion of participating in an informational process and being able to give your perspective on something when you open disclose on the record what you do for a living and where you are so that everybody can make a balanced decision of it, that's the only thing I worry about.

We all want to participate on the process. Voting, I agree with you 100% and each of us has to make our decision based on that.

SUSAN KNIEP: I am also the former Mayor of the Town of East Hartford. And I served for many years on the Town Council.

And I don't know if you have ever served in local government or not, you were. Well, then you know, excuse me, then you know as well as I do, when there is a conflict on the table, that the person not only does not participate, they actually remove themselves from the table, let alone voting.

They simply don't participate in the discussion. I would hope that is the way that it is at the state level as well. Thank you so much.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you for your thoughts. Next on the list is Ray Schwartz, followed by Neil Oldham.

DOUGLAS SCHWARTZ: Good evening. It is Douglas Schwartz. And I had one dilemma. Now I have two, following Ms. Kniep's testimony.

But before I begin, I want to preface this by, when I finish, I am going to submit to the Clerk an FOI request to this Committee for the transcripts of the August 25^th and October 25^th, 2005, hearings which I have been unable to locate.

I spoke to the FOI people here when they walked out and I want to clarify. I am not obligating myself to pay for those. If they exist, I would like digital copies, please.

If they don't exist, I would encourage you to make transcripts and put them on the Internet. But my two dilemmas are this. I agree with everything that Mr. Wactowski said and with everything Senator Fasano said.

But I think there is a failure to communicate. This is a constitutional issue. It goes beyond legislation. We don't want to watch sausage being made. We don't want to consume it. We want to become vegetarians.

And I can best illustrate that by reciting Section 11 of the State Constitution, the property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefore.

Now, in March of '04, when the State Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Kelo that public use meant public purpose and that economic benefit was acceptable, they split four-three on whether there was a legitimate plan in New London or not.

But they unanimously ruled that public use, the clear meaning of it, doesn't mean what the people think it means and what we have thought it means for almost 200 years. That was no longer a time for legislation.

But right after that, Representative Ward introduced legislation, and I e-mailed him, I said forget it, we need impeachment of the Supreme Court.

He was smart enough, you would be glad to know, because he is a politician and we are not, not to respond to me. But back then, in March of '04, that was unthinkable.

Today, with the national outrage over Kelo, it's perhaps a little bit more thinkable. But my second dilemma is this, the dialogue between Mr. Harris and Mrs. Kniep.

I think it's an ethical obscenity that Members of the Legislature are allowed to make a living off of funds that the Legislature passes out. Senator Finch just comes to mind, Senator Aniskovich, there's many more, the former Senator Aniskovich, excuse me.

This needs to be addressed, like Mrs. Kniep said, through a constitutional convention. We have some bedrock issues here. Now, getting back to Senator Fasano, I can deeply appreciate the work that this Committee has gone through.

And there has been quite a great deal of movement. There's many good things in this Bill. And it's clearly been a bipartisan effort. It's been a sincere effort. I mean, it is a quantum leap to not take any property with a dwelling on.

But I have to agree with Mr. Wactowski, with Mr. Dudko, with Ms. Kniep and many others who preceded me and will succeed me, that this is basically a form of theft. And the Legislature is outlining, eminent domain removes the free market.

You hold a gun to somebody's head with a bullet in it and label it eminent domain. You can call it what you want, but it is simply theft. I have the polling data right here from Quinnipiac, 89% of the state population basically agrees with that.

You've got the means and the opportunity and the motive. The motive is always the same. It's avarice. Enhancing compensation, certainly it's a good thing, but 150%, that's close to the bid spread on many pieces of real estate.

That doesn't even come close to addressing the real cost to people. We have to redefine what just compensation is and we have to take the profit out of it.

We have too many developers, too many politicians who are beholden to developers who are benefiting from this. And I would like to quote from the transcript of the July hearing from Senator Newton, who had perhaps the most intelligent comments about this.

He said, quote, they push poor people out, that is what is happening in our urban areas as we call economic development. Then he talked about compensation. You couldn't live there. He is talking about Bridgeport.

You cannot not live there based on what fair market value is. And then he goes on to suggest that maybe we should give homeowners tax breaks like developers. And he is in prison.

But meanwhile, you are giving the means and opportunity to local officials to do exactly what he was honestly discussing here. Now, there is no criminalization in the proposed statutes.

In New London, we know that the statutes were trampled. On January 21^st, 1998, Pfizer's Board of Directors voted to move into New London. Two days later, the realtors were in that neighborhood threatening eminent domain.

Actually, there had been people in the neighborhood prior to that, some months prior to that. We don't know if they threatened or not, that's not clear, but they were actually putting it in writing two days later.

Nobody went into prison for that. We could be here all night. I am not going to go into what is wrong or what is right in the bill. There is a lot there and we appreciate it.

The public is talking about a quantum difference from simply a legislative change. There was enormous criminality in New London. There is going to be enormous criminality in municipalities across the state unless we get some fundamental constitutional changes.

Finally, I would like to submit to the Committee the copy of an e-mail message that our City Attorney passed around a week ago today. It is not at all confidential. He did it in a public manner. I believe he gave it to the press.

This has been going on for too many years to count now in New London. Basically, this is right out of the Nazi playbook.

They have the attorneys for the City of New London, their Representatives, the politicians, the New London Development Corporation members, their attorneys have been slandering the people of Fort Trumbull, making them the scapegoat for the City's economic problems.

There was some dialogue earlier, and I'm going to finish with this, there was a dialogue earlier from a man from the Connecticut Homebuilders Association, I believe, about legal fees. We can't find out what the City has spent to attack our residents.

They won't give us a straight answer. We haven't yet FOI'd NLDC. We would assume that it has been in seven figures. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Any questions? The question I have, do you support eminent domain to build a school, a road?

DOUGLAS SCHWARTZ: Yes, I do. I am not an anarchist.

REP. WALLACE: I don't know if that's an anarchist. And would you support taking a person's home to build a school, a road? I just want to make sure I understand.

DOUGLAS SCHWARTZ: Unfortunately, I have to agree with that. But I think if someone has to pay that terrible price, whether it's a home or a business, and by the way, I am glad you asked me that, because I forgot to mention.

What you have done is created two classes of property owners, and that is not acceptable. On one hand, for the Legislature to be worried about economic incentives to keep businesses in the state, at the same time it is pulling the rug out of half the property owners in the state who don't happen to own a dwelling.

Forget it, that's not going to fly. But no, I support traditional economic, excuse me, traditional public usage where ownership is retained by the government and is used by the public.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Neil Oldham, followed by Susan Munger.

NEIL OLDHAM: Good afternoon, lady and gentlemen. Neil Oldham, 11 Plant Street, New London. I realize that the power of eminent domain is a necessary tool of government, but it is such a powerful tool that it must be used with extreme care.

I adamantly oppose its use for what is called economic development. In the 1850s, the Supreme Court majority upheld the right to own slaves, saying, actually, it was up to the states to decide.

The current court majority, in ruling that eminent domain can be used for economic development, also made it clear that it was up to the states to oversee the use of this awesome power.

Eventually, the states voted to abolish slavery. I hope eventually [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2A to Tape 2B.]

--of basic civil rights, the right to own property. Many states are moving to do just that, and they seem to be able to do it without tying themselves in a knot as Connecticut seems to be doing.

But they have been moving to prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development. And Connecticut should follow their example for many good reasons.

First of all, regardless of how many safeguards are created or ombudsmen named or public hearings held or compensation raised, the abstract term economic development can all too easily be abused in the hands of the powerful and the politicians.

Second, the use of eminent domain for economic development is based on the false assumption that officials must have this tool to help financially stressed communities. That is false.

The records show that there have been more failures than successes in this endeavor to bolster our communities' financial situation by taking and destroying homes and businesses.

The only ones who benefit are the developers, real estate agents, lawyers and bureaucrats, not the lowly citizen like myself.

And if you think about it, you will realize that those who want the government to have the power to take a person's property for economic development are really giving up on the American ideal of the democratically free interplay of economic forces.

They are all too willing to concentrate ever greater powers in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians. As we all know, especially in Connecticut, power corrupts.

Whatever you do, stop the ability of the state to use eminent domain for economic development. And also make it retroactive to stop the nonsense in New London. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Any questions? Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would, you were on a roll there.

NEIL ODLHAM: No, I'm sorry. I have bad hearing. And I've got to tell you guys, the acoustics in here are not too good. I can hear the witness here, but hearing you people, except for a couple of you who do speak up, is hard.

REP. MINER: I'll try to speak up.

NEIL OLDHAM: Good. I appreciate it.

REP. MINER: In terms of an outright ban on eminent domain for economic development, CBIA has raised a caution that there are parcels of property in the State of Connecticut that are a matter of brown fields, maybe heavily contaminated.

The property owner doesn't want to invest any money. They, you know, may have walked away from it, but at this point are not in a position to do something.

Yet, people come to the community and say why don't you take that piece of real estate and redevelop it. Would you envision an outright ban including those pieces of real estate as well?

NEIL OLDHAM: Well, first of all, I would point out that some states have a complete ban and they seem to be able to operate anyway.

REP. MINER: It's amazing what some states will do.

NEIL OLDHAM: Secondly, it's also amazing what some won't do. Secondly, as I said at the beginning, I believe that eminent domain, the power of eminent domain is a legitimate power that the government has to have for many reasons.

I can think of, it's necessary sometimes to protect the environment, for instance, and what you were talking about now might fall into that category.

I see protecting the environment as a benefit of use to all of us, so, yeah, there are some ways and somehow you can do that.

But when you talk about economic development, that is not improving a brownstone or anything like that. It's simply an effort to make money for some few people.

REP. MINER: You know, as much as I like to agree with a number of points that you made, I might I guess differ with you on this point. I mean, generally, an industrial piece of property has an economic benefit to somebody at some point.

So to envision cleaning up a brown field and turning it into something other than a future industrial use, I'm not so sure that would work. So if I could just make sure I understand your position.

If it's an environmental issue in terms of cleaning it up for the environmental aspect, then eminent domain is okay. If it's acquired through eminent domain with a future economic benefit in mind, it's not okay.

NEIL OLDHAM: I would have to say yes. To answer your basic question, yes. In terms of cleaning up the environment, it would have to be very clear that this is what is going to happen.

In terms of economic development, you are not clear at all as to what is going to happen and whether it will benefit anyone at all.

That's the danger of allowing the government to use eminent domain for something called economic development. It's too nebulous. It's too open to abuse.

If you are talking about cleaning up the environment, you can have some very specific, testable criteria to determine whether it is something that can be done or not. New London alone shows you why taking property for economic development isn't going to work.

REP. MINER: We may have a hearing or communication problem. I am not saying that you would take it specifically for economic development. I'm not saying that the Town of Litchfield would go out and condemn a parcel of property solely to give it to you so you could develop it.

It's a recognition that a piece of property has sat vacant, unused, undeveloped, unclean, it is not generating any revenue, in fact, it's a negative on everybody's balance sheet.

CBIA and others are saying that if you don't give us this tool, allow us to keep this tool, you are going to end up with certain parcels of property that are not only going to affect their own, but they have the potential of affecting others outside of them, because crime spreads, it becomes an area of people hanging around doing inappropriate things.

NEIL OLDHAM: If you can really prove that there is some deleterious effect by leaving this property as it is, take action. Absent that, you can't.

If you just don't like the property, even if it's somewhat messy or unsightly, I don't think the government should have the right to take it, no.

REP. MINER: Thank you. That has been helpful. Thank you.

NEIL OLDHAM: Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Any other questions? Thank you for your testimony. Susan Munger, followed by, it looks like Steven Hallquist.

SUSAN MUNGER: Good afternoon. Can I just comment on the previous conversation? I guess one of the things that the Legislators are going to have to think about is is the polluted brown field situation a common one or a real exception.

And I don't have an answer to it, but I think it's a valid question and you really need to think of how you protect the majority of situations, which I think is what most of us have been addressing when we have said we don't want eminent domain used for economic development.

Regarding Raised Senate Bill 34, I feel that this proposal is unacceptable because eminent domain must not be used in Connecticut for economic development.

As we have seen in the Fort Trumbull fiasco in New London, the promise of economic development as an excuse for taking people's homes and businesses is illusory.

The Fort Trumbull MDP is foundering because the economic climate has changed since the plan was approved. Pfizer is not at present interested in occupying the former naval underwater warfare center site.

There do not appear to be other developers or businesses ready to move into the area. New London's only hope is that the Coast Guard R&D center and the Coast Guard museum will move in.

But neither of these entities will pay taxes to New London. If one is to believe that the Fort Trumbull MDP was to help the New London tax base, it has been a colossal failure.

However, many contractors, law firms, lobbyists, and engineers have reaped huge benefits. I hope the Legislature is finding out exactly who benefited, including contributors to the Rowland administration.

Regarding House Bill 5038, this Bill is moving in the right direction by excluding residential properties from takings for economic development. However, businesses must also be excluded from these takings.

After all, aren't we trying to bring business to Connecticut, not drive it out? In Fort Trumbull, the properties of small businesses have been seized by eminent domain.

As a result, these properties have been taken off the tax rolls. At these hearings, you have heard from other Connecticut business owners of the difficulties they experience when they are forced to move to a new location, losing their customer base which they may have built up over years of hard work.

Ill-conceived plans like the Fort Trumbull MDP based solely on economic development drive out homeowners and businesses, create ill will, and fail to bring in timely, and I repeat, timely economic development.

It will be years before New London regains the tax base lost by the actions of the New London Development Commission. Regarding the proposal for an ombudsman, this person should not be appointed by the Governor alone, given what happened in the Rowland administration.

The ombudsman must not be bought. This person must be able to truly protect the rights of Connecticut's citizens. And a final point, the NLDC has no plan for the land where the properties were seized by eminent domain.

We want these properties returned to their rightful owners and put back on the tax rolls. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Any questions? Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO: What was that last statement you just said, something about they took properties but there are no plans for those properties?

SUSAN MUNGER: That is correct. The properties in parcels 4A and 3C of the Municipal Development Plan, actually there have been a number of plans for those parcels.

But as far as I know, none of them are in effect at the moment. These properties were taken by eminent domain and we, to this day, do not know how the New London Development Commission is planning to use those two parcels.

SEN. FASANO: Out of curiosity, when they originally sought the public policy to, or public purpose to take it for economic development, did they indicate at any time that those parcels would be used for some benefit with the respect to the development of economic purpose?

SUSAN MUNGER: I believe the first idea they had for parcel A was for park support for the Fort Trumbull State Park, which had been created just across the street. As far as we could tell, park support meant places to park buses and maybe lawnmowers and things of that sort.

I don't know if you have ever been to New London, but this is a magnificent piece of property with views out over the Thames River. It is highly valuable, taxable real estate.

It should not be used for something like park support. At one point, the plan was to put the Coast Guard museum there, and while many of us feel that would be a very nice addition to New London, it would be a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization.

Again, we are taking valuable, taxable real estate and putting a museum on it. That's not a good plan. As of now, as far as I know, we have asked the NLDC repeatedly what is their plan for those parcels. And we don't know.

SEN. FASANO: Were those parcels residential before or were they business before?

SUSAN MUNGER: Residential, yes.

SEN. FASANO: One of the things that we did discuss in our working group session was the issue of what if municipalities or state, whatever takes property and then decides to not go forward with their plan.

There seemed to be some discussion about the property owners whose property they had lost as a result of eminent domain, even for a highway, and then the idea is abandoned.

It seems uniquely unfair to take it for a purpose, abandoned the purpose, and then the property owners don't have the property. So I was just kind of curious as to this particular issue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. WALLACE: A question I have, Ms. Munger, regarding the property rights ombudsman, or ombudsperson, whatever. If not appointed by the Governor, then how?

SUSAN MUNGER: Well, I don't have an answer to that question. I think perhaps, I don't know. I don't have the answer. But I think it's extremely important that that person be very, very impartial.

We feel strongly that many of the things that happened, were allowed to happen in New London were influenced unduly by people who were going to personally benefit whether any development ever occurred or not.

And so this ombudsman, maybe it should be a committee of ombudsmen. I'm not sure. Somebody mentioned earlier, I think, that Utah has a very effective ombudsman and maybe we all need to look at that and see how they have set it up.

REP. WALLACE: Yeah, actually, that's where the language came from. In Utah, they are appointed by the governor. We will consider it further.

SUSAN MUNGER: Based on our immediate past experience, I would be cautious. I really think there needs to be input from a number of people before this person is appointed.

REP. WALLACE: And this Committee will discuss that. I just think it is important to recognize the Governor currently continues to appoint all the state agency heads, has large appointment authority.

If we set up some advisory committee appointed by the Governor and the State Majority Leader and Minority Leader, I don't know. We will have to ponder that.

SUSAN MUNGER: Well, I think an earlier comment was made on whether we really needed an ombudsman. And I'm not sure that we do.

If we have the statutes in place that really protect people's rights, then I'm not really sure that we really should need an ombudsman. I am certainly not in favor of creating another position if it isn't really necessary.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Representative Wilber.

REP. WILBER: What we have in place, if a governor makes an appointment, that appointment has to go through a committee, and then the full Legislature is the one that votes on that appointment. It has to be approved.

So there is a process. Just because the governor appoints a person, there is a process of which they have to go through in order to be verified. So I think there is some safeguards in regard to that.

SUSAN MUNGER: Okay.

REP. WALLACE: Any other questions? Thank you for your testimony. Stephen Hallquist, followed by Carl Yacobacci.

STEPHEN HALLQUIST: My name is Stephen Hallquist. I am the secretary for the Coalition to Save Fort Trumbull Neighborhood. I have been here a few times. And we have submitted various documents.

Specifically, I wanted to address one particular issue that was just raised, and that was the issue of process.

This past fall, I remember Representative Urban was questioning DECD Commissioner James Abromaitis about his recollections and involvements in the development of the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan.

And I experienced a sense of deja vu going back to the summer of 1973, when I was fortunate enough to witness personally the Watergate hearings. I was amazed at how often he recounted that he had no recollection on how this process was.

That was unfortunate, because it brought back to me the pain of seeing a lack of process that was guaranteed to us. And now we are talking about other bills that allow for a process to be in place.

We submitted a number of complaints, specific complaints with regards to statutorial issues that were presented in letters. They were sent certified. They were accepted by DECD and we got no letters back.

We got no response back at all from those. After not receiving comment from James Abromaitis, the Commissioner, I wrote a letter to Attorney General Blumenthal and, after about another three months, we got a letter from him that gave us no comfort either.

Specifically, we raise issues about the fact that, in this process, that people were being denied the opportunity to address issues of value. They were threatened, they were intimidated, they were coerced by realtors who were managed and contracted by the NLDC.

They were members of the NLDC and still are. Those people were threatened with eminent domain from day one, prior to adoption of a plan which happened two years later. According to the statute, that's not supposed to happen.

And yet it did. We brought it up to DECD and Rita Zangari said very clearly to us, she was Deputy Commissioner, she said you must understand something.

We, the DECD, and the NLDC, New London Development Corporation, are partners in this program. End of story. Anytime there was an inquiry about specific issues, we got nothing.

So I am supposed to find some comfort that there is a process being put into place. Our experience in New London and specifically with the Department of Economic and Community Development, whose Commissioner is still James Abromaitis, we have no confidence whatsoever that this process is going to bear fruit, that we are actually going to be participants in it.

The fact of the matter is is that we were trying to be part of the process as landowners, property owners in the City of New London.

Many of the homeowners that were represented in the Supreme Court case were participating on a regular basis, describing the difficulties and the problems that were arising through this whole process.

Once again, I should say this. There has been more commentary from this Commission right now in this day than we received for two years in New London.

The comment or the idea that we should have a two-thirds majority vote to approve any kind of action with regards eminent domain is laughable when you apply it to the New London case, because the majority of the people who were serving on the council at the time were either members of the New London Development Corporation, had already signed off, had already decided what the outcome was going to be.

So when you look at the numbers, there was no chance that anybody was going to get a different view, a different opportunity. The idea of having an ombudsman I think is, I'm not real confident that that will work.

And I think that the bottom line that we should really, once again, just deny the use of eminent domain for private economic development. I do agree that when it comes to issues of blight, I think there's a proper use for that.

Specifically, when the issues of public welfare, public safety are involved, where there are issues where you have environmental cleanups that are necessary.

But I should say this. We are talking about taking property away from legitimate property owners because there is something wrong with the property.

But yet this state owns hundreds of properties that are in the same kind of state and they have stayed that way for a long, long time and we get nothing, we get nothing out of it.

It's interesting that in the past week and a half, Mayor Sabilia of New London has proposed that the homeowners that are on parcel 4A be able to remain there with a sense that they will have life use of their properties and the City would still hold possession of the property.

It is interesting that this property all of a sudden is capable of sustaining residents for possibly 35 to 40 years where, just a few months ago, it was absolutely impossible to do so.

So we have seen over some time this huge change, in fact, we are starting to believe in miracles in New London, because what wasn't possible just many days ago is quite possible now.

And so I just want to say once again that I prefer that eminent domain be reserved for traditional uses, public uses. I think Raised Senate Bill 34 is not going to be effective. I think House Bill 5038 has some potential.

But I believe that many of the proposals, many of the ideas can be ironed out. And I am encouraged by the direction that Raised House Bill 5038 is going. Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you. Are there questions? Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: Thank you. In New London, the Economic Development Authority and the Council overlap, they have members that are members of both.

STEPHEN HALLQUIST: Yes.

REP. MINER: What's the planning agency in New London? Is that a separate entity?

STEPHEN HALLQUIST: Yes, we have a separate Planning and Zoning Commission, which is a separate entity. They were part of the process as well. How it is structured, we have a redevelopment agency in the City of New London.

The redevelopment agency, through a public meeting, gave its authority over to the New London Development Corporation to take on the task that would be typically held by the redevelopment agency.

In that case, also, there was members of the redevelopment corporation that were also members of New London Development Corporation. It seemed from the very beginning that it was a stacked deck.

There wasn't really an honest participation when it came to the public. I should say this, is that there was many public meetings held. I think there was 14.

And if you go back and if you were to look at some of the minutes, one thing you would find is that the overall majority of the people who were involved in those public meetings continually said one thing.

We are for economic development. We are for a project here in Fort Trumbull. However, we want to see these people's rights, their property rights maintained. And I should say this wasn't just something that, you know, was just a hope for.

We actually had architects, designers, other builders, other developers come up with alternative plans that were summarily dismissed within minutes of their submission. So we knew what we were in for in New London.

And what I am saying, I guess, ultimately is this, is that you can develop a process. That doesn't make the process clean. We saw that in New London. It was uglier than making sausage. It was pretty stale from the very beginning.

REP. MINER: Thank you. And in New London, is the legislative body the electorate at large or is it the Council?

STEPHEN HALLQUIST: The Council is an elected body and they were in the process, and the process--

REP. MINER: The legislative body. In House Bill 5038, there's some language that calls for two-thirds majority vote of the legislative body.

STEPHEN HALLQUIST: Council is that.

REP. MINDER: And so do you think that, will that go far enough to correct the concern that I think I hear you say?

If you have members that are part of both groups and it requires two-thirds majority and you still had buy-in previously, I don't think two-thirds gets you to where you want to be.

STEPHEN HALLQUIST: Well, in this case, two-thirds, we had no chance. I mean, two-thirds, you remember every vote that was taken through that period of time was six-one, six-one, six-one, six-one. There was never any difference.

The people who voted, the people on Council who voted were either, they were at-large members or members of the New London Development Corporation across the board.

REP. MINER: So for purposes of this, setting aside New London, would you like the two-thirds to be electors of the community rather than the legislative body as it may be by charter or by statute?

STEPHEN HALLQUIST: Well, in the case of New London, like I said, our legislative body is that Council, it is elected.

REP. MINER: But I'm asking you what you would like to see in the future. In the future, in terms of eminent domain, economic development, for areas that everybody agrees might be blight and nobody wants to touch it, do you want the same group of people that I think I'm hearing you say tonight you are concerned about being the ones that are two-third or do you want the vote to go to the electorate in New London?

STEPHEN HALLQUIST: I think that in the case of New London, I think it would have been fair if the electorate be allowed to participate by some referendum.

But it was, you know, if we don't allow for the citizens to get involved with it, I think we are really denying something that is kind of obvious.

But, you know, in the Quinnipiac poll, 89% of those surveyed said that they did not approve essentially of the kind of process that was engaged in in New London.

But I think this is that when people hear the facts from both sides, when they are able to consider all the information, I think that a lot of people who would say, well, you should never use eminent domain in any case would probably change their mind.

I know that I am not one who is a strict advocate of just using eminent domain for bridges and schools and that kind of thing, although I do believe that that is often necessary.

I do see it as a legitimate use when it comes to public safety issues and public welfare issues, where the public health is involved. I believe that that's a place.

And I think that when the electorate is allowed to hear those concerns and see really what the issues are, that they tend to make pretty good decisions. And I think that they can, if it doesn't work out, it's on us.

REP. MINER: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you, Representative Miner. Any further questions of this witness? Seeing none, next is Carl Yacobacci, to be followed by Arlene Yacobacci.

CARL YACOBACCI: Good evening. I am here, I guess, from listening to some of this testimony, to defend some of the business owners and commercial property owners in the State of Connecticut.

I have spoken at three previous hearings involving the eminent domain for economic development.

In these hearings, the people and property owners have overwhelmingly spoken out against the abuses suffered and the toll it takes on a person's life when threatened by the abuse of power by local governments and large developers.

Eminent domain I feel should be stopped for economic development in the State of Connecticut.

In Senate Bill 34, paragraph 8, it says inserted is the definition of economic development, meaning any land use that increases tax revenue.

I don't know if this is really for the public good. If there is a development that goes in that is going to increase your tax revenues by 5% but the town incurs a 10% increase in costs due to larger schools, more teachers, more firemen, police, garbage collection, road maintenance costs, etc., is this really for the public good just because it generates more tax?

If it generates more cost than tax, then it's not for the public good. It's actually bad for the town. We are going through an issue in Derby, Connecticut, with some of those issues which I won't go into today. It is getting a little bit late.

But I will go into some of the things I read in these proposals I think need attention. One is penalties to developers who do not start and complete a specified project on a timely basis.

We have been held up for years in our community, putting many businesses and people's lives on hold.

Buildings that could have gone up in our town, additions that could have gone up on our properties making our town a better place have been put on hold because of development that is not happening over the course of these years.

I think the developers, and once you have a plan you should have a timeline. And it should be adhered to very strictly or penalties put out so that developers just don't hold up land so that maybe somebody else can't get to it.

I think that juries can award compensation as an option to an ombudsman. I think somebody who is going through possibly an eminent domain should be able to have a choice of having a jury versus just a judge hear their case and let the people decide what just compensation might be.

The 150% of fair market value, again, I don't know how you can really determine whether it's 150%, 200%, 300% in that sense, and who is going to really determine what the fair market value is.

Is it the developer who is going to try to hold the cost down? Is it the towns, who may appraise your property just based upon your tax card? Or is it best and highest use of land by one of, say our appraisers, the property owners' appraisers?

So I think that has to be addressed as to what that might be. If that's the case, we have to go through. But I still think 150% is too low, especially since that we are still asked to bear the cost of legal expenses, appraisers and that sort.

I think the person who is trying to take our property should be the person who incurs these expenses, as we are not willing sellers in this negotiation.

And the person who is taking our property, I feel, or any property should be taking the property as is.

If you are going to put up a huge development and then ask somebody, we are going to take your property, then we are going to make you clean it up if there's anything on it when it's perfectly good as is if you're the owner but can't sell it, why should then that person have to pay. It could be enormous costs to clean up something to give to somebody else.

That could just kill the entire profit of the deal. A couple of different comments from what was said, if I may. Representative Wallace is gone, but on his position of commercial versus homeownership.

And he thinks that the commercial property is not quite worth as much. I beg to differ, because I know I can buy another house in a nice neighborhood on a dead-end street somewhere where I live and I can be satisfied.

I cannot find another location on Main Street in my town with 180 feet of Main Street road frontage and 25,000 cars going by every single day that's going to look at my business.

I can't really be moved to many locations on that. In terms of the commercial property, to me it's much more valuable in terms of dollars than my house.

I have much more ability to generate a profit, generate appreciation on my commercial property than it is on my house. So to me, my commercial property is much more valuable than my home.

And I think a lot of people are missing the point on that. On the ombudsman, I think that could be a good idea, maybe not the end all and be all.

But that could be a good starting solution to try to negotiate something between two parties before it does reach a court settlement. It might be able to negotiate that.

As far as how they get in that position, if it's appointed by the governor, like I said, at the time it seems like a bad idea. But as we just heard, that it goes through different committees.

I feel that would probably be a good idea if it's a bipartisan committee that can, you know, ask him the proper questions, make sure it's not a politically motivated job.

And I do like the no executive sessions do discuss the eminent domain property taking over and stuff like that. Let the public know who is making the decisions and how they are making the decisions. I think that's a very good idea.

As far as a two-thirds majority, if they are being voted on eminent domain, my opinion is I guess even though there could be bad situations, our Board of Aldermen or whatever board is to make that determination, I guess they would be the ones to take the vote.

My feeling is they would know more about the project or what's going on. I would rather leave that in the hands of that than the general public.

Because most of the time, the general public seems on issues like this, we are going through our downtown revitalization, people really don't know what is happening. So that's all my comments I have. Thank you very much.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. I believe we have some questions for you. Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO: It's good to see you back here again. I was kind of curious though. So the update, what's happening in Derby, right? This is where the property is?

CARL YACOBACCI: Yes, my property is in Derby.

SEN. FASANO: And they haven't taken your property yet, right, there is just a plan that includes your property. Is that right?

CARL YACOBACCI: There is a plan that includes our property. It is a conceptual plan. It still has not gone through any zoning changes or engineer drawings. They haven't done any traffic studies, cost-benefit studies, but it is a plan.

SEN. FASANO: There's also, as I understand, been a change of administrations in Derby as well.

CARL YACOBACCI: Correct.

SEN. FASANO: Just out of curiosity, in your opinion, was that based upon this eminent domain issue or there are just other issues?

CARL YACOBACCI: I don't know if it was based upon the eminent domain issue. It was definitely based upon the non-action of the developer in downtown Derby. And that was definitely a major, major factor in the extremely large turnover of the politicians in our town.

SEN. FASANO: When you said, I remember you and I talked a little bit about this, but when they were going to condemn, if they take your property by virtue of condemnation, they would offset the price that they were going to give you by virtue of the estimated cost of cleanup of the property, is that what you are saying?

CARL YACOBACCI: Well, what they wanted to do in their proposal to us, which was about, I think about a year and a half ago, we just received one proposal from one of their representatives who was, the company was terminated from them.

And it said in their proposal that the landowner has to clean up, we have to pay for the environmental study and clean up any contamination before we turn our property over to them.

SEN. FASANO: And that letter came from who?

CARL YACOBACCI: It came from a representative of the developer.

SEN. FASANO: Would you mind getting to this Committee a copy of that letter?

CARL YACOBACCI: By all means. All of the business owners received letters. I will try to get copies of all of them.

SEN. FASANO: I would also be curious, do you recollect, and we will see it in the letter, but I'm curious, did you recollect that that was in the context of if we condemn your property and if we take it, you will have to do the following?

CARL YACOBACCI: It was an offer to purchase the property and it had the conditions on it. And one of the conditions was that we had to pay for the engineer, the studies and clean the property.

SEN. FASANO: It was just an arms-length transaction then, if we bought the property, we would pay for this value but you would have to do this other thing.

CARL YACOBACCI: Correct.

SEN. FASANO: So it was not in the context of a condemnation.

CARL YACOBACCI: No, it was not.

SEN. FASANO: And, you know, what you said does strike me, because I know Derby very well, as you and I talked about, is that you are right, if you have a business in Derby, which is a very short Main Street, and you have to change to another location as a business, all that clientele that is used to where you are and the good will, there should be a value for as part of the condemnation.

CARL YACOBACCI: I kind of, it's kind of like having waterfront property. We have Main Street property. It is very valuable and is very limited.

SEN. FASANO: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. COLEMAN: Any questions from other Members? Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point, have you gotten anything from the City releasing you or telling you that they are not interested in your property anymore?

CARL YACOBACCI: No, it is still a plan that's on the table that is going forward. We don't know exactly what it is. We haven't been told yet when. It was in the newspaper.

And here's one thing, we have never really been kept in the loop. We found out in the newspaper that they say they want to try to acquire the properties within the next 12 months. We were not told of this. It came out in the newspaper.

REP. MINER: In terms of us looking at this legislation in the larger context, is that something you think we should be dealing with as well? How does a property owner get off the hit list, so to speak?

CARL YACOBACCI: Well, I don't know if we get off the hit list. If somebody wants to come in and develop and they negotiate with the property owners to buy their property, everybody has a number, I would say.

All you need is most of the business owners in Derby, we have purchased down there, we've stayed there, we know that Derby was a lot less expensive than other towns.

To now take us and say we are giving you X amount of dollars for this and that is over fair market value, that still might only be 30% or 40% of what we can buy a similar property for in a town that's located next to us.

So is it really fair, because by taking my business and my property, they say it's not your home, but if I can't make a living, it will be my home.

REP. MINER: And I appreciate what you are saying. And I, having had a business, I appreciate the position that you take with regard business and it being your home. But what I am trying to get at here is from time to time, elected officials change direction.

And so what I am trying to get at is, if a certain administration felt on a given day that that was the direction they wanted to go in or a group wanted to go in, at some point when they change direction, do you feel there is a timeframe in which the municipality must say you are off the hook?

I can envision where an individual like yourself, if you chose to liquidate your business and move somewhere else, the stigma of the town having gotten this deeply involved with your business may make it unsalable or may certainly make it less salable than it otherwise would be.

Because somebody going in there looking at that, as a matter of disclosure you might have to say or a realtor might have to say, hey, there's this little matter of the town wants to take this whole block.

CARL YACOBACCI: I believe, yes, there should definitely be a timeframe if you have a plan and you can't put that plan into action. Just like anything, there has to be a time when you have to, you know, it's fish or cut bait.

I mean, you have to make a time. And whether it's our town, a different town, say look, we have given you, pick a number, four years, five years to make this plan happen and you haven't put a shovel in the ground. Take that plan away. We will go back to square one.

REP. MINER: So then maybe de facto, you know, the plan just doesn't exist anymore as a matter of law. I guess that--

CARL YACOBACCI: That would be, I think that would be fair, just to give somebody the time that they request and if it's not done within that particular time, then it's like an invalid contract.

REP. MINER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. COLEMAN: Other questions? I have one, actually a couple. On your idea of a penalty for a developer who does not start and complete a specified development, what do you suggest that this penalty should be based on?

CARL YACOBACCI: That I would have absolutely, I would have no idea what that would have to be written into and what the laws would be on that. Is it compensation to the business owners or the property owners that they may have held up monetary to them?

Is it monetary to the town who could have had a development going and lost tax revenue? There is, I think that the developers should be held to something.

And if they don't do what they promised, should have to pay a penalty. What that penalty is, I really don't think I have the expertise on that.

SEN. COLEMAN: You have probably covered this to some extent, but how do you feel about the provision that would require a property to revert to its original owner in the event that a certain amount of time passes and no development occurs?

CARL YACOBACCI: I think that sounds good on the face, but if they relocate my business someplace else and I'm there for five years and all of a sudden they say, oh, this project's not going through, you can have your property back.

Well, I guess by that time, would I really want it back? Would I want to go into now an area that has not been touched for five years and it's probably a lot more run down than when you left? Maybe I got sick of it and moved out of town by then.

I don't know if reverting the property back in my case or in any business' case if they relocated would really make a difference, unless the timeline [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2B to Tape 3A.]

SEN. COLEMAN: On the situation where you say an offer was extended and a provision of the offer included the requirement that the property owner be responsible for cleanup of the property, was there a threat of condemnation behind that offer as well?

In combination with the offer, was if you don't accept this, then we will simply proceed to eminent domain?

CARL YACOBACCI: Our former Mayor and his assistant, when they visited my shop and a couple other businesses, yes, on the first meeting said that if we didn't accept, we would be taken by eminent domain.

SEN. COLEMAN: But the offer itself came from the developer.

CARL YACOBACCI: The offer itself came from the developer's representative.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Any other questions? Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO: Just in line with what Chairman Coleman was saying. I think that one of the things we are trying to deal with, as I said earlier, is that if it's five years, they take the property and in five years they don't do anything, one of the things we are sort of contemplating perhaps is a first right of refusal to buy back the property at the value for which they valued it when they took it from you.

If property values go up 10%, you buy it back from what it was bought from you for. Not saying that that's what we're going to do. One of the concepts was that you would buy back at whatever value that they took it from you five years ago, because it's an asset of yours, it would have appreciated but for the fact of state interference by taking it. You don't have to do it, but it would be an option.

CARL YACOBACCI: I think that's something that is probably good, because it does give people an option.

If they were relocated maybe outside the town and had an opportunity to come back into the town and reclaim their property and start again or possibly even develop it further, that would probably be a good idea, first right of refusal.

SEN. FASANO: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. COLEMAN: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much.

CARL YACOBACCI: Thank you for your time.

SEN. COLEMAN: Arlene Yacobacci.

ARLENE YACOBACCI: Hi, good evening. Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Arlene Yacobacci. I have been up here several times before regarding my commercial properties which are being threatened with eminent domain in the City of Derby.

The language in the Bills proposed have not changed much in content over the hearings that have been held. The Raised Bills still do not go far enough in protecting private property owners.

I am here today in the hopes that other citizens will not have to face the injustice of eminent domain as State Statute currently allows.

The redevelopment agreement for our city calls for ownership of all commercial property and most of the housing units to remain with the preferred developer.

The developer has shown the public merely concept drawings adding some 700 living units along with 100,000 square feet of commercial space without adequate parking.

This property will not be for public use. The current municipal parking lot that is there today will be eliminated.

Regarding economic development, the developer has not proved to the public that there is an economic benefit to the City for the size development being proposed.

They have not provided a number of jobs created, nor have they have shown the public how much the Town will benefit economically from the most current proposal.

The size of the development will require an increase in police services, fire services, educational services, public works services, not to mention that this is a heavily traveled route that will only create traffic nightmares.

This additional burden on the City's own services versus the taxes generated should be substantiated with realistic studies of the developer prior to the stealing of any private property.

As to your proposal to compensate based on fair market value, there is no clear-cut determination of fair market value. We are in an area that has deteriorated buildings that the City owns.

We are told that our buildings are not worth much because of the City's blighted buildings. The value of the property should be that of the property at its highest and best use or 200% of fair market value, whichever is higher.

While we are being shut out of any redevelopment by the City, those businesses that are on the fringes of this project will benefit economically from the redevelopment.

Furthermore, there should be a provision for reimbursement to the property owner for the cost of hiring an independent appraiser and legal counsel.

This would lessen the financial burden on the private property owner. As far as goodwill is concerned, this also is a value that is difficult to pinpoint.

We have a permit that we received from the City to put in a kitchen showroom. The month after the City took our money for the permit, we were told not to bother as the City was taking over our property.

Thus, we have lost money by not being able to put in the showroom. We have the most road frontage on Main Street of any private property owner on a heavily traveled Route 34 which connects I-84 and I-95.

We have also been unable to rent our property, as there is pending uncertainty as of if and when our property will be taken. So there is no good determination for establishing a goodwill factor.

We have already been put at a financial disadvantage against a multibillion-dollar developer. As for relocation, the City's relocation plan called for using City-owned property that the City acquired from the State Department of Transportation for $1.

This relocation resource was pulled off the table when the developer found that the cost of infrastructure would be too expensive. Last week, we learned from the newspaper that our buildings are coming down within the year.

We have not been informed directly from the City, even though the relocation plan clearly states that representatives of the staff will periodically visit or call nonresidential concerns being displaced in order to consult with them regarding their location.

Also, realtors we have contacted have said since we have no valid offer and no timeframe, there is no sense looking for properties when we cannot present an offer.

The other issue that needs more attention is legal compensation after the property is taken over. As the law stands, there is no reimbursement for those property owners who contest an unfair price for their property.

Currently, there is no negotiating the price of the property. If we dispute the just compensation, all legal fees are at our expense. Waiting until the case can be heard in court can take years and lead to further financial burden on the former property owner.

The original tenet of eminent domain was for public purpose. However, current State Statute allows for eminent domain to be clearly abused by both the municipalities and private developers.

Our City's preferred developer has openly admitted that he is motivated by greed. In closing, I urge you to put in a moratorium on eminent domain until laws can be put into place to protect the rights of private property owners.

Please close up the loopholes that give large private developers the advantage over citizens who have worked hard for what they have and do not have the financial resources to protect themselves. Thank you for your time.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you very much. Are there questions? Representative Aman.

REP. AMAN: Just to clarify in my own mind, how many years has this been going on that you basically have not been able to do anything?

ARLENE YACOBACCI: Well, it has been a couple of years. The first offer that was just discussed was back in the summer of 2004. Since then, everything has been on hold.

REP. AMAN: Okay. If you would have said in 2004 I will take the offer, would they have bought the building or would they have still been up in the air like this?

ARLENE YACOBACCI: We really don't know because nobody took their offer it was so low.

REP. AMAN: And they have not started any proceedings, correct?

ARLENE YACOBACCI: They have not started the proceedings but we are told our buildings are coming down.

They have taken over, on the other end of Main Street there have been properties that they have bought out a couple of years ago. But they haven't worked down our way.

REP. AMAN: So they have not had to put their offer in cash with the court or with anybody else.

ARLENE YACOBACCI: No, just the original offer that we received, yet we have been in limbo for years.

REP. AMAN: Okay, but the original offer they did put up as a cash settlement.

ARLENE YACOBACCI: Yes, they took an old assessment value from the Town.

REP. AMAN: Did they pick that up as cash?

ARLENE YACOBACCI: No, they just sent us a letter out of the blue. Nobody took their offer.

REP. AMAN: I think what I'm getting to is that it just seems very unfair to not take the property but say I am going to do it without having to put like you would, once you start proceedings, you have to put the money up with the court that have you do it.

The developer in this case seems to have the best of all possible worlds. They have the property off the market. They--

ARLENE YACOBACCI: Definitely. We haven't been able to sell our property, haven't been able to improve it, our lives have just been on hold.

REP. AMAN: I think that's something the Committee should look at, that there should be a timeframe from the time a municipality tells you that they are considering taking it that they have to take an action one way or the other.

Again, I think it's something our Committee should look at. I don't have a good solution to it, but I think in your case, what we've seen is to my mind very unfair.

No matter how you feel about the project, I don't care if they are taking it for a school, you can't let a business or homeowner live in a life of uncertainty for that period of time.

ARLENE YACOBACCI: Right. And we don't get the answers from going to the city meetings. We haven't received any answers.

REP. AMAN: Thank you very much.

ARLENE YACOBACCI: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Lauren Canario.

LAUREN CANARIO: Good evening. My name is Lauren Canario. I live in 33 Smith Street, New London, Connecticut.

I just have a short message about the proper purpose of government. Pretty much in America here we think that, believe that government is here to protect the rights of the citizens and for no other reason.

The Declaration of Independence mentions that when governments, our instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and when a government destroys the property rights or the rights of the citizens, they have no valid power over them anymore and the people must take their power back into their own hands.

Pretty much, if there was to be a revolution against the State of Connecticut and if there was to be a Declaration of Independence written in the same form as the one in 1776, at the bottom part where he lists all the wrongs that King George has visited on the United States or the colonies, the first thing that would be in that new Declaration of Independence would be that the state has stolen property from the rightful owners without any just compensation. Any questions?

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Are there questions?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You aren't planning this revolution, are you?

LAUREN CANARIO: I'm just the second wave. The third wave will probably have the rifles. Just as an aside, until July, the Kelo court decision, I lived in Las Vegas, Nevada.

When I heard about that decision, I moved to Connecticut and rented an apartment in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to keep anything bad from happening to the property owners there as best I could.

SEN. COLEMAN: It doesn't appear as if there, well, maybe there is, Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: I was just asking where she was going next.

LAUREN CANARIO: Maybe Derby.

REP. MINER: I'll take you to Colebrook after that.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you Ms. Canario. James Johnson is next.

JAMES JOHNSON: Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Jim Johnson, originally from Minnesota. In 1966, the local veterinarian bought a piece of property. Less than a year later, his property was eminent domained.

He was given less than he paid for the property. He went to court, was not paid for any of the time that he had to go to court and he had his court costs.

They condemned his property. It was dirt, it was grass, just a field and they condemned it. From that time, and you have heard a lot of eloquent speakers here, I am more on the crude side, everybody I know calls eminent domain theft.

It is governmental theft. You have a philosophical problem here. You are trying to legitimize theft. I think you should approach it more on the basis that you are actually stealing these people's properties.

You are the power in charge. You have the power. You have the guns. You have everything. You can take them and toss them off their land. You should be as thieves and pay for that property.

Whatever the people want for that property, you should give them. If the property is so valuable that you have to take this land from them, you should pay for it.

The one thing that people in Fort Trumbull have never heard is how much do you want from your land. Is that hard? We have a system of capitalism.

We determine the price of something by the free exchange of property. We do not lease property from the government. We own the property. When you take the property, by definition that's theft.

I know in this Bill you have gone to a two-thirds majority, is that correct, is what you are considering? I would like you to consider that if two-thirds of the people in the United States wanted slavery again, would you do that?

Or is there laws and a Constitution to prevent that sort of thing? The amount of money should actually be a deterrent to eminent domain. That's why you should pay exactly what the people want for their land.

You can't, if you are going to take it for economic development, that would definitely deter that. Do you have any questions?

SEN. COLEMAN: Are there questions? Apparently there are no questions, Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much for your testimony. That concludes the people who have signed up on our signup list.

I see there are still some people in the audience. If there is someone in the audience who hasn't had an opportunity to testify and would like to, they may come forward now.

ROBERT YOUNG: Good evening, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Wallace, and other Members up here who I don't really know but I know I have met you gentlemen numbers of times. My name is Robert Young. I live at 20 Copper Mill Road in Wethersfield.

I will go on the record immediately to tell you that I totally oppose of eminent domain anywhere in the State of Connecticut. I don't believe that we really need it.

If you want to say we have to build roads, we have roads that cannot be built because it just costs too much money.

When we want to build a municipal building, we have to go out and find money from so many different sources because it just costs so much money. We are not a community that is growing.

We started to stagnate. We fell back. We grew a little bit. But we are not growing. And if you want to say when we build a new development somewhere, whether it's housing or an industrial park, it's the developer who builds that road, not the state or the towns.

So I don't really believe we need it. I did look at your bills, Senate Bill 34 and House Bill 5038. And I was, first of all, Senate Bill 34, I didn't really feel that, all it did was explain what a municipality or a taking authority had to do.

It kept the rule right out there for them so it could progress and succeed in doing illegal taking.

I didn't see any protection in there for the landowner, with the exception that if the landowner wanted to challenge it because of some illegal actions of the taking authority or some question could they really live up to what they were saying or going to do with it, that the property owner could take them to court.

But how many can really go up against the strong arm of the government and fight a battle? It's a loser.

I looked at House Bill 5038 and there may have been some issues in there that caught my eye that I really wanted to talk about, but I have other issues I want to talk about tonight.

And in all, I believe that these two bills just don't have what the people need for protection. There is a lot of protection for the taking authorities.

There are a lot of rules that they have to follow and it explains to them what they have to do in order to make that illegal taking.

And what's really bad about taking of someone's property, not only their rights being stripped from them, but the fact is you are up against the government.

The taking authority comes in here and asks you for permission. You are our government, and you give them permission. Then you give them the cash to work with.

And I think that is so unfair to that little lowly landowner or bunch of little landowners who cannot in any way stand up against this government with all this money and power.

The fact that they can pull, no matter what the landowner tries to do to stop a condemnation, there is no way he or she is going to succeed because they just don't have the cash to do it against the government.

Of course, I come back and I say you folks are the folks that are funding it. And you are funding it with our money. And I don't think that's right.

If there is anything about these bills that you have here, you should put something out on the street as a referendum across the State of Connecticut saying do you want, Mr. and Ms. Voter, do you want eminent domain in the State of Connecticut, yes or no.

For economic development, you could ask them. You could ask them if they want it for open space, which is used as well. I mean, I keep hearing people talk about they don't believe we should be using eminent domain on economic development projects.

Well, what about open space? You shouldn't be doing that either, but you have. Due compensation, there has been some chat here about jury trials.

I think jury trials would have a lot of effect on at least if you were using eminent domain to give the citizen some kind of feeling that he is being judged by his peers.

Being judged by a judge is totally different. As everybody knows, judges don't walk the streets like the rest of us. They hide, they're back in their protected little communities.

They don't know any of us. And what in the world do they know about property values? When you sit in the courtroom, I sat in the judge's chambers.

I think we had 18 sessions, 82 years old, two hearing aids, falling asleep, I mean, this is what a landowner who loses his property is up against. And then that judge is then going to determine what your value is for your property.

You people know you have a lot of problems down at the Supreme Court, yet I don't see anything being done down there. Next, I think that the boldness of our officials who do use this eminent domain is just appalling.

And how they operate, and the way that they maneuver things, something has to be done. And all it boils down to is it's money. It's cut the money out. If you people cut the money out, they won't be doing it.

And that's really what it's all about. People in the State of Connecticut are overtaxed, and this would be a way that you could cut taxes. If the town of X, Y or Z wants to do eminent domain, go to Wall Street and get the money.

Go to the local bank and get the money and pay it back. But when they get free money like they did in New London, what, $80 million, $70 million, whatever it was, of course they could give a $1 lease to Pfizer without the flick of the eye, because it isn't their money.

It is somebody else's money. And you folks have given them the right to do this. It's our money. We are the ones who are putting into the pot. I'm sure that you are too.

But the fact is we are all putting into the pot. And it should not be going for eminent domain.

I would like, at our last time when we met, I had come and I spoke about, first of all, I opened it up with Eddie Perez, I believe, had been at that meeting earlier.

He had made a comment that he needs economic, he needs eminent domain because it's a good economic policy tool. I am sure you folks remember, I waved in front of you these reports.

These show eminent domain in the State of Connecticut over a number of years. I didn't have that ready really for presentation, but I do at this point. This report goes back to 1970. In 1970, you had one.

In 1978, you had one. In 1986, you had two. And it goes on until we get into 1997, we had 138 across the state. The next, 1998, we had 174. It goes on until we get down to the year 2000, we had 448.

The year 2003, we had 245. And then 2004, we had 311, which gave us a grand total on this list of 2,517 condemnations with all, a great, the great amount of those over the last five years.

And this is out of hand. It is because you folks are giving all this money out to them, the takers. You are giving them anything they want. They are as bold as bold can be, and it must stop. Thank you very much.

SEN. COLEMAN: Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO: Just as a point of fairness with respect to the 2000 takings that you have there.

A lot of those, not a lot, but I would suggest that a portion of those takings, I don't know, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, is related to the number of road projects, either the expansion of 95, 84, Route 9, Route 80 up near my way where they had to take every single road frontage going up Route 80.

And that had to be, I know, in New Haven/East Haven that there was probably, I'm going to say well over 75 takings with respect to the widening of Route 80.

And I suspect that, you know, it isn't fair to say that all those were takings equivalent to that of which we have seen at New London. I don't think that that would be a fair conclusion to draw from that.

That's the only word of caution I would put out to that number. I am not sure that that is a true representation that all of a sudden eminent domain has gone crazy in the State of Connecticut.

ROBERT YOUNG: Well, are you saying that they were building route I-91 in the last couple of years?

SEN. FASANO: Well, 95 started a number of years ago--

ROBERT YOUNG: A long, long, long time ago.

SEN. FASANO: --95 started and is still going on presently, even in New Haven with takings. As I said, Route 80 was, I don't know, three or four years ago. I'm trying to think.

Even a town road or state road that is widened for various traffic light intersections that are improved require lines of sites, widening of intersections, turning of trucks, those would be condemnations by DOT, would be the plaintiff.

ROBERT YOUNG: Sure.

SEN. FASANO: And they would file a taking claim. You know, they send an offer, it would only, you know, the 10 or 12 days and then file the taking claim and then they get resolved. But I am just suggesting, I am not sure that the numbers are not indicative of 2,000 New London takings.

So that's the only thing I'd want to bring up as a point. And, you know, I understand and I am leaning towards the fact and have leant that a home is a home and you don't take a home. But let me just throw this out.

But if there was a development and we all, all of us in this room owned property in this area that they wanted to develop and we all sold out except me, and I knew that as long as I didn't sell out and all the rest of you sold out, I can get four times my fair market value.

Because after you are all gone and my piece is the only piece left in that puzzle, I now become kingmaker, especially if I'm interior to the parcel. And I don't believe in eminent domain to take a house under any reasons.

Deterioration gives me problems because it's not defined. And, frankly, the people from Derby left, but Derby started this blight statute that was totally discretionary.

And it's the same thing as deterioration or deteriorated, always gives me problems. Who is going to define that term?

But on the other hand, I've got to figure out in my mind, what happens if there's a development and I want to be the kingpin, I want to hold out, so I get the blackmail money.

I get the money that says I do want to sell, but I will hold on while all you people sell out for lesser value, fair market value within, you know, 5%, 10%.

But now I want to be the guy who gets the lottery ticket. There's an unfairness there that can come out. And I don't know how to deal with it. I'm just raising the issue.

ROBERT YOUNG: Well, I think the answer to that question is when it does go through, first of all, I think the landowner held out.

He probably has more value in his property and he probably should have been paid much more than the other people. On the other hand, if it went to court, he is going to end up with a lot less.

SEN. FASANO: I agree with you there. That's the problem, if he goes to court. I have been involved in condemnation cases, most of which on a plaintiff, well, on the property owner who is being taken, that side. It's weird because when we do condemnation, you're really the defendant.

But I've represented property owners, and I have yet to see, in my view, any condemnation, even DOT, ever result in a fairness to the people whose property was taken.

I have yet to see that, in my view, based upon the expense, the appraisal fees, the time, the court, and, frankly, to some extent, the result even of fair market value.

So I fail to see the equality in the real-life proceedings that I have seen taken place and those cases that I have read. So I agree that if it is taken, you are going to get less than the value of property for a number of different reasons.

On the other hand, we've got to figure out a way to deal with this other issue where, you know, you saw fair market value, maybe a couple of percentage points above and you are happy.

But I know if you do and Senator Coleman does and Representative Miner does, I will be sitting pretty because I get to be a kingmaker. And then Representative Miner says, well, Len's not going to be the kingmaker, I'm going to be the kingmaker.

That's the issues that we kind of figure out a little bit more and we're going to discuss a little bit more. But those are the concerns that do get raised.

And I think that the big city raises to us, Mayor Perez, for instance, Mayor DeStefano, in the bigger cities who say that's the problem.

Once we disclose we want to go for development, there are people who will say let the city pay me eight times the value, buy out everyone else and I become kingmaker. Those are the harder issues for us.

ROBERT YOUNG: And what you are really describing is what someone mentioned earlier, the system of capitalism. That is what we live under. If one person has a better mousetrap or he holds out longer, he gets a higher price.

SEN. FASANO: But that's not a system of capitalism. That's a system of trying to blackmail the position of your property. And that's an issue. No, that's an issue, because it's not capitalism.

Capitalism, if I came up to you with a dollar figure that's 20% more than fair market value, you would have sold but for the fact that you know.

This is a difficult conceptual issue you've got to get through. But for the fact that you know that you are the main cog in this wheel, you would have sold. And that's the unfairness that the cities present to us.

One of the things we've got to figure out, how we are going to deal with that so cities like New Haven, and Stamford, and Hartford can present a plan without the fear of saying, gee, if we announce this plan in public of what we are going to do, people are going to say ah-ha.

I am going to hold up the whole project. I'm going to hold up an $80 million project or $800 million project because everyone is going to sell out but me. And it happens in private.

I mean, there's developments that you can go out to, and I can name a few in my area, where there has been a holdout and a development has gone around the person, because he held out just, you know, maybe a couple hundred thousand dollars more than he should have and they said to heck with you, we will build around you.

But that is an issue that we get faced with that we also have to deal with on the other side of the table. I'm just being fair to the argument. I'm not hiding anything. That's an issue that we have to talk about as well.

ROBERT YOUNG: Okay. But in the case of New Haven, consider it--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible – microphone not on]

ROBERT YOUNG: He's the one that got $375 million in the State of Connecticut last year, okay, hello, Mr. Dyson. You have a rich community down there.

You got a lot of money from the state taxpayers. Yeah, I know, I know. That's just how DeStefano feels about it too.

But, you know, the fact of the matter is that if you folks fund this eminent domain activities, you are encouraging that last holdout to keep his price up there.

If DeStefano says we are broke but, you know, if he cried the blues, he doesn't have the money, he may end up getting the property for a lot less money or market value without going through eminent domain.

But because you are propping them up by giving them our money to fund this stuff, you are in a sense building those higher values. And I think that's something you ought to consider, $375 million to the City of New Haven last year.

That's a lot of money. And it's not all for eminent domain, of course. It's for everything, but that is a lot of money. My town only got less than $10 million from you.

So the way you divvied it out, we got hammered and many other communities got hammered. And a few cities made out like bandits, okay. And that has got to stop, and that is where a lot of this eminent domain is being taking place.

And because of the money that you are throwing in, the people at home know and the price of the last holdout is the guy who is going to try to squeeze. Take the money away and see what happens.

It would be a whole different concept for you guys, but do it. It would be bold to say, no, we are not going to give any more money to economic development. If the city wants to do economic development, go out on their own laurels and do it.

And then they will come back and say we don't have the ability to get a lot of money. And then everyone sells out for fair market value. There are no big condemnation cases and so forth and so on.

That would be the sensible way to do it, and it's a whole new approach. Thank you very much. But I would really like to chat with you about it. Anybody else have a question?

SEN. COLEMAN: Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: Let me have a go at this. Let's just assume, which is dangerous, that Senator Fasano is correct. Some of the takings in the last five years had to do with highway widenings or drainage rights.

ROBERT YOUNG: Which is possible, which is possible, yes.

REP. MINER: Do you consider that a proper use of eminent domain?

ROBERT YOUNG: Not anymore. Not anymore. I don't believe in it. I don't believe in using it. I don't think we should use it.

REP. MINER: For anything.

ROBERT YOUNG: For anything. I mean, I know we're talking, I know I was reading in the paper yesterday or today about the busway from Hartford to New Britain. And they are talking about, well, there might be 12 properties they might end up taking.

Plus, along the way, they are going to build some ramps to go over some kind of roadways and the businesses that are down there are going to be in the shadows of a bridge or whatever. I mean, you're going to be taking from them as well.

How much are you going to spend on that, $336 million to run busses back and forth between Hartford and New Britain and a couple little loops in between. Horrible and so wrong in doing that.

And you are going to have another 12 eminent domain cases on our report or more. And how many people settle that don't get on the report?

You know, this report came from the state judiciary system. How many people gave in and didn't go to court because it cost too much money?

These people from New London, how in the world, if they own a house that's worth $100,000, how in the world can they spend $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 to go to condemnation court?

That's something that, you know, the taking authority knows. We lost our property. We spent $150,000 in court. That's a lot of money, a lot of money.

And if we didn't do that, we would have ended up with a tremendous amount of money less. And we didn't get anywhere near fair market value. It was a disgrace.

REP. MINER: You said you had a document that you would share with us. Thank you.

ROBERT YOUNG: Yeah. I'll meet you after these hearings.

REP. MINER: I thought you said you made copies for everybody.

ROBERT YOUNG: No, I didn't make copies for everybody, but I may have a couple extra and I will give them to you after.

REP. MINER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. COLEMAN: Other questions? If not, thank you again.

ROBERT YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Coleman.

SEN. COLEMAN: I believe that concludes those who want to testify before the Committee. Oh, by all means.

SUZETTE KELO: I will only be a minute, thank you. My name is Suzette Kelo. I live at 80 Street, New London. And contrary to popular belief--

REP. DYSON: Might I ask something?

SUZETTE KELO: --yes, Sir, I'm sorry.

REP. DYSON: You said your name is what?

SUZETTE KELO: Suzette Kelo, Sir.

REP. DYSON: I have heard that name.

SUZETTE KELO: I am sure you have. Contrary to your belief, Sir, in the Center there, not everybody wants to sell their property there and not everybody is holding out for more money.

I was told by the City of New London in 1998 that I had to give up my property or it was going to be taken by eminent domain. I have now gone all the way to the United States Supreme Court, lost, and now I am still in my property.

There's 90 acres there. And now I have been told by the Mayor of New London at last week's City Council meeting that I can now keep my property for the next 30, 40 years or however long I live, just as long as I give it to her when I die.

SEN. FASANO: Who said that?

SUZETTE KELO: Mayor Beth Sabilia, Sir. Now they are telling me that they don't need my property, but they want to retain title of it just as long as I will pay my rent and taxes for the rest of my life. Not everybody wants to sell their property.

SEN. FASANO: I didn't want to infer that in your particular case or the New London case that that is the position that, you know, everybody was holding out. As I said, I don't believe in eminent domain to take a house or a home. I just don't, okay?

SUZETTE KELO: Well, that's good to hear.

SEN. FASANO: That's where I'm coming from. But I am saying that one of the issues that do have to be dealt with on that position is what if there was an area that is deteriorated, and I mean deteriorated in the real sense that you could think in your mind, what you would assume to be deteriorated.

But there was one person who wanted to hold out because, not because they wanted the property, but because it was some way of blackmailing to get more value for the property. How do you deal with that maybe unique situation?

It's not your situation up in New London and it's not situations of economic development that we've come to see where they take houses, because I don't believe that's the way it should happen. But then how do you deal with that one issue?

In a deteriorated neighborhood that is purely deteriorated, you know, it's for whatever you could think of, practically bombed out, but there is one person there who is living there who says I could take advantage of this situation, and they can.

They can stop everything for the benefit and the good and welfare of that community, just stop development. Now, if that's okay, we are saying, no, we are going to allow that to happen, then we've got to make a conscious decision as policymakers that that's okay.

Those situations will occur and if they do, the project doesn't go forward. And we recognize that that's a flaw in the law or not a flaw in the law. We recognize that's a consequence as a result of what we do.

I am okay with that if we make it a conscious decision, but the issue has to be discussed. And it cannot be ignored that that could happen, because it could happen. And have I seen it happen? Yes.

Not at a condemnation level, but in projects where I have represented developers, where they have bought property and one person realized that they were, you know, the holdout and they held out for more value and they made a great deal for themselves.

That's okay. But in the municipality, that may kill the project. My concern is, is that we recognize that issue and say we can live with that as the State of Connecticut because the overwhelming policy decision to protect the home is ever-powerful, and therefore we'll deal with those conditions.

And we recognize that that will be a thorn in the law, should it happen. Okay, I recognize that, we're okay, but that has to be discussed, because we should never make decisions here unconsciously.

We need to know the ramifications of what we do, good and bad, and then determine which is the best policy. I did not want to infer that in your situation or the other folks in New London that was the case.

I honestly believe you guys want to hold onto your homes and they are pressing this redevelopment upon all of you who didn't want to leave because you had a great community. And that's the reason why I believe we should protect the home over condemnation. Thank you.

SUZETTE KELO: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Further questions? Further comments?

SUZETTE KELO: The only other thing I have to say is I have been told by the City of New London and the New London Development Corporation that they want to build 80 housing units in my neighborhood.

They tore down 80 houses. I want to know how come I can't live there. And you people let this happen to us. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Let's see. Seeing no one else in the audience who hasn't spoken, I am going to declare this public hearing closed. Thank you, Members of the Committee. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.]