Mr. Bullock, who represented the landowners in New London, said Pfizer’s announcement “really shows the folly of these plans that use massive corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain for private development.”
“They oftentimes fail to live up to expectations,” he added.
For its part, Pfizer said it had no stake in the outcome of the Kelo case nor any interest in the development of the land that was acquired by eminent domain, according to a statement provided by a spokeswoman, Liz Power.
Pfizer to Leave City That Won Supreme Court Land-Use Case
By PATRICK McGEEHAN
From the edge of the Thames River in New London, Conn., Michael Cristofaro surveyed the empty acres where his parents’ neighborhood had stood, before it became the crux of an epic battle over eminent domain.
“Look what they did,” Mr. Cristofaro said on Thursday. “They stole our home for economic development. It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk away.”
That sentiment has been echoing around New London since Monday, when Pfizer, the giant drug company, announced it would leave the city just eight years after its arrival led to a debate about urban redevelopment that rumbled through the United States Supreme Court, and reset the boundaries for governments to seize private land for commercial use.
Pfizer said it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London within two years and move most of them a few miles away to a campus it owns in Groton, Conn., as a cost-cutting measure. It would leave behind the city’s biggest office complex and an adjacent swath of barren land that was cleared of dozens of homes to make room for a hotel, stores and condominiums that were never built.
The announcement stirred up resentment and bitterness among some local residents. They see Pfizer as a corporate carpetbagger that took public money, in the form of big tax breaks, and now wants to run.
“I’m not surprised that they’re gone,” said Susette Kelo, who moved to Groton from New London after the city took her home near Pfizer’s property. “They didn’t get what they wanted: their development, their big plan.”
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Giving Br. Clarence His Due
"In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court ruled that it was permissible to take private property and turn it over to developers as part of a plan to bolster the local economy. Conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas, dissented. Justice Thomas called New London’s plan 'a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation.'"
Pfizer exec plays key role in 1978 movie
I never quite "got" why my colleagues-not-of-color loved Animal House so much, but it did have the following line which explains soooo much about our civilization to this very day:
ProfGeo, I LOVE Animal House
I can't even explain it, but it cracks me up everytime I watch it.
as for the story, they got what they deserved, and it's mean to say that, but that's how I feel.
pt, it's the only case in how many years, that I think he actually got right.
as for the story, they got
You mean the nickel-ninety-eight politicians and judges who supported this scam? Pfizer got, among other bennies, a 10 year tax abatement. The folks who homes were seized and destroyed got diddley-poop.
It is the only decision he has made on the court that I ever agreed with.
I do mean the politicians and judges
I know the people, the 'little people' got screwed.