Brief Summary On The New London City

In 1969, Massachusetts fashioned the law 40B, famously referred to as the “Anti-Snob Zoning Act”, which allows developers to bypass land use restrictions in towns where less than ten percent of the housing meets the state definition of affordable. There are multiple positions and solutions to friction in Massachusetts largely inspired by controversy surrounding the State's affordable housing law, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40B between housing advocates and open space advocates. This thesis reviews and critiques the current law, and diagnoses various legislative proposals for the progressive feud.

London Supreme Court ruling. In order to generate tax revenue, add jobs, and to prevent

Amongst topics of conversation regarding eminent domain, one will find regulatory usage of land, seizing of land for public use, and the most controversial of late, the seizing of land from a private owner and giving it to a more economically beneficial, often politically connected private owner. Kelo v New London (US 2005), has prompted dozens of proposals to reform eminent domain practices legislatively. Most of these proposals would restrict the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private individual to another. It is one thing to have a city claim property to further the development of the city by building roads, schools, etc. It is another thing altogether for the government to seize a property so as to gain money from higher taxation. For many years, however, courts have read the public-use restraint broadly, enabling governments to take property from one owner, often small and powerless, and transfer it to another, often large and politically connected, all in the name of economic development, urban renewal, or job creation.

In the seventeenth century, London was one of the most important and rapidly expanding capitals in Europe. Transforming from a medieval town made of wooden buildings and limited to the Roman City walls to a modern metropolis of brick and stone expanding beyond the original wall; however, this century was also filled with disaster. The Great Fire of 1666, transformed the City from its medieval roots to the modern City present today; however, first it brutally destroyed the City in a blaze of fire over a course of three days. Taking a historical look at the progression of the Great Fire of London and how there were increased consequences faced by the City due to the decisions made by an inexperienced city official, the reasons the City officials declined the plan that Wren presented for the rebuild of the City, and how the rebuilding caused a social divide in the City that is still present in contemporary London.

The city of New London Connecticut had made economic recovery efforts to sustain a severely downtrodden local economy. Those efforts included a plan to acquire 115 parcels of real estate in order to redevelop an area of commercial, residential and recreational elements. The plan consisted of removing homes to build a new development in order to create jobs, increase tax revenue, and better allow for the city to

With reference to the case of the Kelo v. city of New London, the court ruled that the government should take private property through eminent domain for public use. This is due to the provisions of Fifth Amendment of the U.S constitution. New London, Connecticut, could exercise eminent domain for economic development. New London, Connecticut, was experiencing hard economic times majorly due to the closure of the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which was the major employer in the region. This prompted a decrease in the tax base and population in general. This made the city leaders desperate for some development in the city’s economy. Afterwards, a pharmaceutical giant Pfizer started to construct a facility used for research in the outskirts of New London. This was the only chance for the city to activate the

New London’s economic development plan revolved around attracting new businesses to the city in order to create more jobs and increase tax revenues to stimulate the economy. The project partnered with the Pfizer corporation to construct an urban center that includes hotels, restaurants and other recreational facilities to bring in business ventures. The majority of the local population of New London supported Susette Kelo and her neighbor’s argument that the seizing of land for the transference to NLDC was not an example of a public use and believe that the policy of eminent domain was a violation of property rights because it’s implementation was a misrepresentation of the constitution. Under the guidance of governor John Rowland, who wished to gain political approval by implementing more development projects across Connecticut, the local government of New London delegated the power of eminent domain to NLDC in order to take the burden off them and avoid confrontation with the majority democratic city. This proved effective because the NLDC is a private, nonprofit, agency who is not answerable or accountable to the public. The supreme court remained affirmed to their duty of protecting and implementing the constitution and believed that the government of New London had the authority to exercise their power of eminent domain in order to complete their economic development project,

Facts: New London used their authority to take other individuals private property to try and sell them to some other private developers. The city of New London also thought that is was a great idea so that it could promote new jobs and that the tax revenues could increase. Kelo whose property was taken from them along with others ended up suing New London in the state court. The owners of the property’s that was taken believed that their Fifth Amendment right was violated, which gave them assurance the government couldn’t take their private property for the use of public without restitution. However the owners of the property put up a good argument about trying to take their private property to try and sell it to other private developers was

In 2005 one of the most divisive cases we had ever heard on the Supreme Court occurred—Kelo v. City of New London. After a decade of the 5-4 decision I still get questions about this case. By far eminent domain has been one of most complex and controversial aspects of in our nation’s history.

Case: Kelo, et al., v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. (U.S. Supreme Court 2005)

In Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), building a parking lot will increase the quantity and rate of storm-water flow from the property, thus keeping the floodplain free from the development would likely confine the pressures on Fanno Creek created by the new development. However, this was not enough for the city; the city wanted the land for itself. According to Justice Rhenquist, “the city must make some effort to quantify its findings in *396 support of the dedication it asks for” (Dolan v. City of Tigard 1994, 5). San Jose’s law does not solve the issue of increasing low-income housing, but instead harms entrepreneurs. The City of San Jose has made no effort to meet its burden to show that developers of new homes are somehow responsible for the astronomical prices of housing in the city. The law is an impediment to growth, an interference with the free market and an exceedingly expensive cost-per-unit way of integrating lower incomes into high land-value

The act of eminent domain has traditionally been interpreted as a way to build public roads, schools, and courthouses. Local governments, however, have been invoking these two words for far less principled reasons such as building new shopping malls or new more

The gradual deterioration of feudalism and the modernizing of intellectual thoughts not only endangered the nobles’ social security, but it changed their political influence on civilians as well. The residents of the towns did not wish for any of the local lords to interfere with the governing of their lives. Thus, the townspeople “Strove to get recognition for their own law, their own courts, their own judges and magistrates” (Colton, Kramer, & Palmer 32). This shift was the beginning of the want for personal administrative rights, though it was not yet for the benefit of the individual. Ultimately, “Each town was a collective entity” (Colton, Kramer, & Palmer 33). The local government decided on specific liberties and laws for their own

Urban Regeneration in the London Docklands The London Docklands Development Corporation is located along the River Thames Estuary 2.a) The London Docklands had to close for many reasons. The main reason was the Second World War. The area suffered substantial bomb damage in the Second World War, which lead to the need for a substantial rebuilding programme.

New Urbanism, a burgeoning genre of architecture and city planning, is a movement that has come about only in the past decade. This movement is a response to the proliferation of conventional suburban development (CSD), the most popular form of suburban expansion that has taken place since World War II. Wrote Robert Steuteville, "Lacking a town center or pedestrian scale, CSD spreads out to consume large areas of countryside even as population grows relatively slowly. Automobile use per capita has soared, because a motor vehicle is required for nearly all human transportation"1. New Urbanism, therefore, represents the converse of this planning ideology. It stresses traditional planning, including multi-purpose zoning,