In the case of Sussette Kelo versus New London I have mixed feelings. I believe that when you purchase property it is yours to do as you wish with it and it is yours forever or until you decided to sell it. Unfortunately, that is not the case, the property is yours until the state finds a better use for it. In today’s economy we have to work extra hard to get ahead and to get the things we want to live a comfortable life.
Sussette Kelo and several others have lived there for many years, one homeowner’s family has owned their home since the 1895. I don’t agree that people should be forced out of their homes but I do believe that when an economy is struggling the city/state needs to find the proper and most economical way to boost their economy. The state was viewing this property as a commercial asset by bringing in Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, hotels and a large a conference center, they would be creating jobs and bringing in more revenue for their city/state. While I agree that bringing in Pfizer Pharmaceuticals and other businesses was a great idea to boost the economy, I didn’t agree with the way they handled it.…show more content… The commercial land may not have had as many businesses because of the share of the land but it would have been a compromise and there would not have been a long drawn out court process. Apparently their homes were not as ascetic as Pfizer wanted them to be and looking out their corporate windows to see a generation of older homes was not in their plan. Maybe, helping the homeowners update the curb appeal of their homes and neighborhood common areas would have been a better and more affordable idea versus court
