Analysis Of Kelo V. City Of New London

1667 Words7 Pages
Taking is by means which the federal or state governments can enforce eminent domain or condemnation of your land or your land rights through just compensation, and fair market value, for public purposes. Meaning, that the government can physically acquire said property for public use or purpose and regulate the use or the manner in which the property is currently controlled. In the below case, Kelo v. City of New London, the term public use is loosely related to public purpose, as the focus was on economic growth for the area, to provide for increased taxes, and even additional employment opportunities. The overall benefits were to the public, but at a cost, who 's cost, the current standing residents required change, by means of uprooting there families and moving. More takings have occurred in the past decade that have benefited private individuals and large corporations that essentially provide more monetary gains to the economy rather than for general public use. The land taken for private benefit has primarily been that of low-income and minority individuals. (Beideman 2007, p.273) Essentially, taking from the poor to empower and strengthen the rich under the guise of economic growth and economic gain.
 In Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, nine (9) property owners challenged a redevelopment plan in which called for seizing tracts of publicly owned land, that had domiciles currently inhabited; challengers wanted build new residences, hotels and other

More about Analysis Of Kelo V. City Of New London

Open Document