Kelo Vs New London Case Study

Words: 1117
Pages: 5
Open Document
The power of the state to take private property for the use in a public project in return for reasonable compensation is known as eminent domain. Giving someone reasonable compensation means that they are paid the fair market value of the property. Throughout history, eminent domain has been implemented for the construction of large public projects and now it is starting to involve projects that are not ‘public use’ but ‘public benefit.’ Kelo vs. City of New London, is a recent case that came before the US Supreme Court that set the precedent for property to be transferred to a private owner for the purpose of economic development. In order for the government to seize land as a benefit to the public for use; it must increase tax and other …show more content…
The case of Kelo vs. New London involved an economic development plan for the City of New London, Connecticut. In 1998, a massive pharmaceutical company known as Pfizer announced that they wanted to build a large research facility in New London near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The Fort Trumbull area is known for having old buildings in poor condition, a high vacancy rate for nonresidential buildings and just an overall bad reputation. The residents of New London and city officials wanted reconstruction. They put together the New London Development Corporation and tasked it to develop a plan to build on Fort Trumbull. This development plan would benefit the community’s way of life and also the city …show more content…
Property developers are consistently trying to convince cities to take property for redevelopment in exchange for a profit and this type of eminent domain abuse is becoming a growing concern across the country. The law has gone as far as defining "public use" as "for the public good"; these are two completely different things. Cities can claim private property and allow private developers to raise new buildings for the sole purpose of profit growth using the “public good” definition. There are many, to include myself, that believe if the state has the right to take away someone’s personal property then what are they not capable of? A person should not be forced from their home without a reasonable cause and this issue puts into question whether or not the government has too much
Show More

Related Documents: Kelo Vs New London Case Study

Imminent Domain Case Study: Kelo Vs. New London

are cases in which it does. I think if the property seized is impoverish or blight and the use of it would make the area safer and more productive for the benefit of the public rather as in public use or public purpose it is a good thing. I can also see how public use and public purpose could go hand in hand and not either/or. If the property seized will bring jobs in or revenue in based on increase taxes, pay the property owner market value and make it a better place. However, in this case with…

Words 1097 - Pages 5

Essay on Bus Law Notes

unconstitutional because it denies equal protection Civil war amendments 14th amendment The states Two due process clauses Bill of rights vs 14th amend Does bill of rights apply only to fed and 14th to only states? Apply to due processes clause, still applicable to congress…??? The rights expressed in both apply to fed and state government Decision: separate but equal Brown vs Board of ed (1954) Involving separate schools for white and black kids Equal protection clause in 14th amend again Same arguments…

Words 3395 - Pages 14