Have You Heard of Susette Kelo?

Kelo v. City of New London sent a painful message to the American citizens. But how many people know about it? And now that you do, what will you do about it?

I recently stumbled upon a movie called Little Pink House. It’s the true story of what happened to Susette Kelo and her neighbors in New London, CT beginning in 1998.

The Weaponization of Eminent Domain

Kelo had only owned her little pink house/cottage for a year when someone came by and kindly offered to buy it from her. They were from a private organization called the New London Development Corporation (NLDC).

But they weren’t really. Through a bunch of backdoor discussions and deals, Pfizer and the local government were behind it all.

So they started with the “generous” approach and offered the homeowners money for their land. Susette Kelo and many others refused to sell, especially when they discovered they were being kicked out so that Pfizer could set up a new plant and build a bunch of luxury apartments and hotels where the homes had been along the waterfront.

Of course, the government and its representatives tried to paint this as a good thing. According to them, Pfizer and its new boner drug would rejuvenate New London, bring more jobs to the area, and stave off the poverty crisis.

“Don’t be selfish, you lower-class residents of New London. Don’t you see this is for the good of the collective?”

But the residents didn’t care. Many of them had lived in their homes their entire lives. They didn’t want to be given a pittance or to have to uproot their homes and lives.

So that’s when the government handed over its power to declare eminent domain to the NLDC (and Pfizer). The residents that refused the buyouts were then given eviction notices. The movie also suggests that one of the homes was burnt down and another bulldozed in order to bully the remaining residents into leaving.

Kelo and a few others brought the matter to court. They challenged it on the grounds that eminent domain had been unlawfully weaponized against them.

According to Cornell Law School:

“Eminent domain refers to the power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use, referred to as a taking. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners. A taking may be the actual seizure of property by the government, or the taking may be in the form of a regulatory taking, which occurs when the government restricts a person’s use of their property to the point of it constituting a taking.”

So there were a couple problems here. The first was that the NLDC and Pfizer were private organizations being given a right only bestowed upon the government. The second was that the land they were seizing was not to be converted for public use — like for schools, highways, or hospitals. It was going to be turned into hotels, condos, and the like with the expectation that the money and jobs generated might help the public.

The case ended up making it to the Supreme Court in 2005. They ruled in favor of the City of New London, 5-to-4.

Dana Berliner, one of the attorneys from the Institute of Justice who worked on the case, had this to say:

“It’s a dark day for American homeowners. While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most politically connected. Every home, small business, or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the Court, that’s a good enough reason for eminent domain.”

She was right. In 2020, Space X and the local TX government pulled the same trick on the residents of Boca Chica. If you haven’t seen the documentary Between Musk and Mars, I’d recommend watching that along with Little Pink House.

Implications for We the People

Pfizer ended up not doing anything with the land they kicked residents off of. Less than a decade later, they closed the plant and moved out of New London, taking 1,400 jobs with them. So all of that hullabaloo about doing this for the social good was bullshit.

I was going to say that’s the most fucked up thing about this whole chain of events. However, it’s really the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Big Business and Big Gov. And so that has me wondering.

Why was this movie made? Why was the documentary about Musk and Space X made?

In this film, you’ve got Catherine Keener leading the cast and she does a phenomenal job. If you don’t feel heartbroken and angry at Pfizer, the CT state governor, and the Supreme Court Justices who ruled against Kelo, I don’t know what to tell you. I can’t imagine anyone would watch this movie and think that anyone of them are the good guys.

The weird thing is that this movie was made in 2018 and the Musk documentary in 2020. Why were filmmakers villainizing some of the most powerful and profitable Big Pharma and Big Tech companies in the world? And why would they willingly paint our governments in such a bad light?

I’m wondering if these films were made for a similar reason as some horror movies are made. Specifically, ones where you have a low-class heroine who kicks the shit out of and/or murders all of the upper-class bullies and psychopaths.

Do these filmmakers want us to walk away feeling riled up about the corruption, but not be so riled up that we feel empowered to do anything about it if it lands on our doorsteps?

Is this a way to get U.S. citizens to give into eminent domain? Or to just give up if, say, the government were to burn down a huge tract of land and homes owned by lower to middle class citizens in Hawaii?

After all, Big Gov and Big Biz always win, right? So why fight it? Why waste the years and the money it would take to go to court? We saw what happened to Kelo and the residents of Boca Chica. Good for them for fighting. We would too… But, ugh, it’s just too much work.

And if they can get us to that defeated state and rationalization when it comes to our homes, what else can they get us to give up on? Our bodily sovereignty? Our guns? Our children? Our freedom of movement?

It’s a well-done movie and a must-watch. Just be wary of what sort of message Hollywood is trying to send with it. In other words, Pfizer and the government might be the enemy, but they will ultimately win in the end. So what’s the point in fighting back?