Kelo v. New London, was a case in which the city of New London, Connecticut were implementing their eminent domain authority. Eminent domain allows " the power of the state to take private property for public use with payment of compensation to the owner" (Eminent domain, n.d.). The city advised the residents the government was intending to be taking possession of their land. The land the government anticipated to seizing was slated to be developed into a more functional and economically beneficial usage not only did the city deem the taking to be a benefit for the city itself but also for the residents. The city of New London felt as if they would be able to use these residents land to create jobs and in doing so increase tax revenues for the…show more content… However, the property owners believed the city was violating the Fifth Amendment the "taking clause", this clause pledges the government did not have the rights to take private land for public use. Public use, was the issue the residents who owned the land were arguing about. Susetto Kelo one of the home owners argued in court stating the city of New London did not have the intention to use the land for public benefits, she argued it was being sold off to a private developers, Pfizer an extremely large global pharmaceutical conglomerate is one, also hotels, office spaces, and other types of businesses. Although, the residents had a strong case the courts ruled in favor of the city allowing some of the land to be occupied by the State. The ruling declared, "The city's determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference" (Kelo v. New London,
