Home Compensation Case Study

The majority opinion I feel like changed the way they looked at the Fifth Amendment to the best public purpose not the best public use of the land in order to justify their ruling. I also feel like their ruling left the door open to many more eminent domain cases because they didn’t create a fine line between what was to be considered to be legal and illegal. I feel like the minority was also correct in saying that this will be considered the norm and therefor taking away the rights given to property owners through the constitution. I also couldn’t find anywhere that it was stated that there were negotiations for the property; I did find in an article that the plaintiffs in the case were not hold outs. Either the NLDC should have purchased the property rights from the owners or the City of New London should have to achieve the most efficient

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.

Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Representative Trent Franks(R) Arizona, 8th asserted that the United States Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London threatens property rights. Consequently, Congress must remedy the effects of the Court’s decision by actively protecting small businesses, and homeowners. The Kelo decision ruled that the government’s decision to take property for the purpose of private economic development satisfies the “public use” requirement of the 5th Amendment. Nevertheless, the government did not provide just compensation to the property owners, thus, ignoring the 5th Amendment’s takings clause. Further, Franks cites Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s principal dissent with the majority’s

The Court rebutted with the fact that economic development is a recognized public use, and that sometimes the greatest benefit for the public is to have the land developed by an agency other than a government agency (Kelo v. New London, 2005). The Petitioner's countered that without such a “bright-line” rule a government could take private land and transfer it to someone else who would put the property to more use and therefore increase the tax revenue of the property. The Court argued that may be true in cases where there was no clear development plan, but in this case the City had developed an integrated development plan (Kelo v. New London, 2005). Finally, the Petitioner’s argued that if a government was going to exercise eminent domain that the public should be guaranteed with some “reasonable certainty” that the proposed benefits would in fact come to pass. For this the Court refused to speculate to the effectiveness of the City’s plan, and argued that once the Court had determined if an economic development plan was a “public use” as laid out in the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, that their job was complete (Kelo v. New London,

The case of Kelo vs. City of New London generated major controversy that reached its way up to the Supreme Court. In addition, it has been the first major case involving eminent domain since 1984. Eminent domain is defined as “the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation”. The City of New London approved a development plan in 2000 that was “projected to create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city”, according to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. In almost all economic development, development agents purchase property from willing sellers. When it comes to property owners who are a little more reluctant bartering over their

In Kelo v. City of New London (2004), United States Supreme Court ruled that property can be transferred from a private owner for economic development. “The court found that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed or blighted urban area, it qualifies as a public use” (What is Eminent Domain, n.d., para. 2). According to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the government cannot exercise eminent domain without fairly compensating the current

Throughout the course of having the opportunity to take VA and US Government class, I've learned so much about the American society. For example, how the government works, learning about important people that are part of the Democratic and Republican parties, and getting a better understanding on why we are considered one of the most powerful countries in the world. The US Government we have today has indeed both changed and impacted American society. I decided to pick and research the Kelo v City of New London case. In their article “ Summary of Kelo v New London,” National Conference of State Legislatures (2018) states that the “public use” plan of a clause that is the “takings clause” of the 5th Amendment, it grants the use of high ranked territory for economic development purposes that supports a public benefit. It basically argued that New London, Connecticut decided to overpower the right to seize private property to sell private developers. However, the property owners argued taking private property to sell private developers was not public use.

The city of New London was in an economic depression and came up with a plan to buy properties and make it commercial, residential and a recreational element to it. They city was able to buy most of the properties but some landowners refused to sell their property. So the city used element of domain power to take the property. Kelo one of the landowners decided to sue. Their main argument was that the cities plan didn’t involve public use, which is what element of domain is used for. The Supreme Court ruled that the cities plan had public benefit so they upheld the cities decision to use element of domain and took the property.

One of the rules that could come into play here is the Takings Clause included in the Fifth Amendment. The Takings Clause allows the government to take private property for public purposes through eminent domain or condemnation proceedings. This clause does specify that there must be an appropriate amount of compensation

One of the primary instances, and landmark cases, that spurred more debates on imminent domain is the Kelo vs City of New London case. “In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court held that “economic development” constituted a “public use” that justified the taking of private property through eminent domain.” (R—N.Y, 2016). Property rights have always been a challenge in every civilization. This case garnered a lot of interest from the media and in turn that of the rest of U.S residents as it shocked the nation. The case is related to a development project that the city wanted to undertake to make the best use of the land in the area. The town of New London, a small city within Connecticut, experienced downward spiraling economy when

Also, state and local governments are required to pay just compensation for property they take under the power of eminent domain.

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

Eminent Domain if used correctly is a fair practice. Looking at this case, I think governments should put more rules into this law to make sure it is not used to take advantage of people. All those home were taken so that a Pharmaceutical company could bring their people here to live which in-turn would help the community. In the end they did not come. It was total waste of effort. In this case Eminent Domain was take advantage of because of a hypothetical that private corporation could help a community. It should not have been used in the first place. Eminent Domain should stick with only being used only for community efforts such as highways, hospital, efforts the community of that city.

Eminent Domain applies under the sense of “public use”. In order for the benefit of the public. Some cases can be in order to create a new highway or a bridge in a neighboring area, the government is allowed to seize the properties in the area and provide compensation in order to do so. Another scenario can be removing properties that tarnish the look of communities,

Not by describing the details of the destruction of the acreage but the worth that it will be after the fact. Making sure that the town and council understands that the land is not being uprooted for any demeaning nature but for growth and opportunity that the town of Beatty is in great need, and if this opportunity is not met in a quick manner, the fact of the matter is that there will not be a need for land preservation for tourism because the land itself will not have any tourist. The town of Beatty is really relying on the jobs that this addition is going to bring and the revenue that will be put back into the state is in great need.