How The Government Can Give Your Land To Pfizer
Supreme Court ruling of Kelo v. City of New London (2005) cemented the government's powers of eminent domain and expanded it beyond projects solely for public use.
Many people claim that the United States government is for the people and by the people. This, I believe, could not be further from the truth. Through various legislation, ignorance of the constitution and individual rights, and forced taxation, people are robbed of their agency to live their lives and enact change how they see fit. The United States federal government and the largest multinational corporations have essentially combined to form some sort of frightening corporate-government fusion which makes it easier to impose mandates, increase regulations, and prevent American citizens from ever being able to rise to the top. People on the left say that we live in a capitalist, free-market economy, while people on the right say we live under socialism on its way to communism. Both sides are partly correct, but they fail to acknowledge the true extent of the cancerous growth of the state.
One case that really puts this into perspective is that of Kelo v. City of New London from 2005, in which the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against a private citizen’s right to stay on the land that they own, so that a pharmaceutical company could buy their land and build new production facilities and offices. This is just one example of millions of the government ruling in favor of the hand that feeds it. That pharmaceutical company: Pfizer.
Susette Kelo was a registered nurse in New London, who in 1997, purchased a little pink house that had a great view of the Thames River meeting the Long Island Sound. Susette was able to fulfill one of her dreams of owning a home, and lived close by to other families who had inhabited their residences in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood for nearly 100 years. In 1998, they even got a huge Pfizer plant which really helped the local property values. It was a great and peaceful lifestyle up until the government decided that Pfizer could make better use of the historic Fort Trumbull neighborhood.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Pfizer pharmaceuticals had plans to significantly increase their campus footprint in New London, Connecticut. Sounds great, right? New jobs in construction and at a large pharma headquarters for New London. At first, this seemed like a development project that would provide a lot of benefits to the city and surrounding area. That turned out to be an extremely naive outlook as the years went by.
In 2000, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) made the decision to move forward with the Pfizer expansion project, and subsequently attempted to seize more than 100 private residential properties in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Most people accepted their fate and allowed their homes to be sold or taken, yet 14 households held out and would not relinquish their homes. These 14 households ended up taking the NLDC to court to fight for their right to remain on the land which they owned.
The City of New London had powers of eminent domain, as any local or federal government. Eminent domain is defined as the ability to take private property for public use, typically used for projects such as highways, parks, schools, and other developments. In New London though, the city government granted its powers of eminent domain to the NLDC, a private company who planned to take all of the neighborhood and sell it to Pfizer. The residents of Fort Trumbull would soon find out that the powers of eminent domain given to a private company allowed for the justification of taking property and displacing everyone for “economic development.”
Over the course of nearly five years, the case of Kelo v. City of New London made its way through the court system. Originally filed on December 20, 2000, the seven owners who would not give up their lots sued the city in Connecticut state court, claiming that the NLDC was abusing its right of eminent domain. Kelo made the argument that economic development did not qualify as public use, and therefore the development corporation had no powers of eminent domain. The state court issued a split verdict, and with neither party satisfied, both parties appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of the NLDC (and Pfizer). The homeowners, still unsatisfied, appealed and got the case to the Supreme Court.
The case was first argued in the Supreme Court on February 22, 2005 On June 23, 2005 in a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court decided to vastly expand the government’s powers of eminent domain. Through their ruling that “economic development” (a.k.a. Allowing a pharmaceutical company with thousands of government contracts to expand their campus and remove hundreds of residents) constitutes a public use, the Supreme Court effectively legalized large multinational corporations the eminent domain powers which the government has.
The ruling built on previous decisions such as Berman v. Parker, and it said that any potential benefit qualifies as a public use, going further, saying that the government did not have to provide any proof that there would be a potential benefit or that the development would even occur.
The majority opinion (those who found for the City of New London), was authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, and he was joined on the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Steven Breyer, and David Souter. These 5 justices effectively said that a corporation has more rights to property than American citizens. The principal dissenting opinion (those who voted in favor of Kelo) was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and she was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The dissenters found that ruling in favor of City of New London (or Pfizer) would open the door to the future possibility of eminent domain cases in which new owners could use property “more efficiently” than a previous owner.
After the decision from the Supreme Court, Susette Kelo said “I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country. I am very disappointed that the Court sided with powerful government and business interests, but I will continue to fight to save my home and to preserve the Constitution.” Another homeowner in Fort Trumbull, Mike Cristofaro, had a home that had been in his family for over 30 years. Cristofaro said “I am astonished that the Court would permit the government to throw out my family from their home so that private developers can make more money. Although the Court ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we waged for my family and for the rights of all Americans.”
The Supreme Court ruling also emboldened other local and state governments to take advantage of the new eminent domain powers they believed to have. Fortunately, the backlash to this Supreme Court ruling was so intense that numerous state legislatures and supreme courts enacted laws to prevent the eminent domain rights of the government from becoming too powerful. In the years following the ruling on Kelo v. City of New London:
Over 40 states passed laws restricting eminent domain
12 states amended their state constitutions to prevent the use of eminent domain for private gain
11 state supreme courts either fortified the property rights of private homeowners or rejected the ruling of Kelo v. City of New London
Community organizers and activists nationwide worked to save more than 20,000 small businesses and private residences from being taken by eminent domain
I have understood the concept of eminent domain for a long time and have always been against the government being able to take people’s homes and businesses for public use projects, but until recently, I had not heard about this case. It is an utter failure of a nation when the government can force people to move so that a pharmaceutical giant can build a campus where they will inevitably develop drugs that will increase both their profits and revenues to the government.
To add insult to injury, the lots that the government took to sell to Pfizer remained empty until 2008, when Pfizer announced they would be relocating their New London campus across the Thames River to Groton, Connecticut. The Fort Trumbull neighborhood, once teeming with families having been there for generations, was devastated and saw none of the economic development that was promised. Finally, in May 2022, it was announced that a private developer would build a 100+ unit residential project in Fort Trumbull, along with plans for an extended stay hotel and community center.
After all those years of eminent domain abuse, promised “economic development”, and then empty land, those nearly 100 homes that once sat in the neighborhood would be replaced with… A 100-unit apartment complex.
Eminent domain is an abomination. It is not right for a government to have the right to force someone out of their home (typically) for a below market value price. It does not matter for what, whether it is a military base, public park, school, government office, or any other “public” use property. There are millions of acres in every state, it is not difficult to find another area nearby to build wasteful public projects with tax dollars, including from the people that were displaced.
Eminent domain is even worse when a government gives eminent domain power to a corporation because the government wants the potentially increased property taxes from the construction of a larger campus for a pharmaceutical company. Situations such as this are a reminder that we live in an omnipotent authoritarian state where the major corporations are essentially another branch of the government.
This Supreme Court decision was almost immediately criticized as one of the most infamous and unlawful SCOTUS rulings of the 21st century, and is still regarded as such today. In fact, the ruling was so unpopular, that over 80% of Americans disagreed with it, and it was a unique situation which, according to Reason Magazine, had Ralph Nader, Rush Limbaugh, the NAACP, and libertarians all on the same side, with Donald Trump being one of the few defenders of the decision.
I believe that if Kelo v. City of New London was to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in a similar fashion as Roe v. Wade was reviewed earlier this year, that the case would be overturned. Clarence Thomas is the only Justice remaining that ruled on Kelo back in 2005, and given that he dissented, it is a possibility that this case could be overturned due to the near unanimous opposition among people and state legislative bodies.
Maybe, in due time, we will see a day where the state is rolled back and government is decentralized to the local level. Maybe it will get worse if the Biden Administration is successful in its plans to unveil a central bank digital currency (like China). Regardless, I don’t think I am the only person who believes that something is in the air right now and we are overdue for a major societal change. It could be the “Red Tsunami” predicted by some these midterms, some false flag event on our soil, an escalation in Ukraine, or something I have left out.
The average age for an empire is 250 years according to a study, and this past July 4th, we celebrated America’s 246th birthday. Of course, it’s very possible our American experiment could last much longer, but who really knows?