Kello V. City Of New London Case Analysis

America's government system is powerful. One way the government flexes their muscles is through eminent domain. Eminent domain is the government's power to seize land from one and give it over to another. Most times, eminent domain is used to improve the city. There are a lot of tensions between whether eminent domain is morally right or even constitutional.

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.

Doing some research on eminent domain I came across the April 2010 issue of the Yale Law Journal. One of the notes in that issue mentioned the history of eminent domain, and it was called “Eminent domain due process” by Zachary Hudson. Hudson talks about how after eminent domain was founded; it was argued that it the power of eminent domain was or was not in the Constitution. Hudson says that “Congress did not pass a statute authorizing the use of eminent domain more generally until 1867 when it did so to aid in the development of national cemeteries following the civil war”

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

Eminent domain is the inherent power of the government to take over a citizen's property for public use without the owner's consent. Initially, this public policy originated in the Middle Ages throughout the world. It became part of the British common law before reaching the United States where it was then illustrated in the US Constitution in 1791 (Britannica: eminent domain). The Fifth Amendment granted the federal government the right

The project was unable to obtain investments and its plans were abandoned in the end. The promises of new jobs and an increased tax revenue were all forsaken. Today, the property that was once a neighborhood for families, is a vacant property with no beneficial purpose to the community that it was meant to serve. American’s view of eminent domain, because of the Susette Kelo case, have changed dramatically since seeing the results from the economic project in New London. More Americans believe that eminent domain should only be exercised in the case of benefiting the public and not for the purpose of advancing economic activities of private parties. The case of Kelp V. New London explains how important it is as public administrators to view and interpret policies to make better decisions on how the process of implementation can better serve the needs of society for the greater

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.

On past occasions, the Supreme Court Justices have upheld takings that ultimately resulted in a private party possessing the land. This has occurred, for example, to allow the development of a plot of land that holds future benefits to the local economy, and in instances of urban renewal, where a new neighborhood goes up in place of an old and blighted one. The court case Kelo v. City of New London was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in favor of the City of New London to heed its future economic development plans. The leading plaintiff Susette Kelo, sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its power of eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled

A majority of my fellow judges’ decisions paralleled my thoughts on the matter, and it was determined that New London was able to legally acquire through the process of eminent domain. Since the 2005 supreme court case, other instances of eminent domain controversy have arisen, and the people of the city of New London has not reaped any sort of tangible benefits. With these new cases, and the subsequent development, or lack thereof in New London my opinion on the matter has changed entirely. It is my belief now that potential and realized economic development does not constitute approval for eminent domain action.

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

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.

A) Due process is defined as the fairness of the procedure and substantive due process (SDP) is defined as fairness of the law itself; the protection of fundamental rights from the government as outlined by the 5th and 14th Amendments (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property”). In West Coast Hotel (1937), Parrish sues for the difference between her wages and the minimum wage required by state law. The question was whether the minimum wage law violated the 5th Amendment. The court held the establishment of minimum wage constitutional. Parrish’s SDP, violated by the difference in her wage, was remedied by the minimum wage law. The law was fair. In our scenario, the law presented is not fair and does violate the liberty of property of the owners. Their SDP has been violated and their grievance was not remedied as was Parrish’s. One sees a similar scenario in Nollan, the question was whether the requirement to add an easement constituted a taking that was in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments. The Court said yes. California could use eminent domain for a “legitimate interest” as long as, as Scalia pointed out, the state “provided just compensation to the beachfront property owners.” The Court created the essential nexus test of legitimate state interest. The ordinance in this scenario has a major issues related to substantive due process. The determination of a “legitimate interest” of the city can be questioned. The city argued that the inclusion of

Everyday. Everyday we see articles, blogs, and videos of citizens having their rights violated; values demoralized; and beliefs taunted. Each report by media outlets is filled with bias, whether it be natural or driven by a “secret agenda” as so many claim. Within the Constitution is a set of rights or principles that were granted to each individual by our founding fathers. To this day, every American holds true to these principles; it is these principles that make us different, make us unique, it is these principles that make us free. But what happens when these rights are violated, when our values are destroyed? What happens when our way of life is suspended to make way for a greater or safer good? When we as citizens no longer have

The power of government to take private property for “public use” is known as eminent domain, which may be found in the 5th amendment of the Constitution. Various positive impacts come out of using eminent domain, such as new roads, schools, and hospitals, nevertheless it stills has its negative impacts on an individual’s life. Many family homes would be demolished from this type of government policy. I believe that eminent domain should only be used for public uses and not the advantages of taking property for commercial use. Therefore, I defend the rights of the homeowner when it comes to eminent domain.

Carson’s rights to fight against the seizing of his property are a notice, hearing, and remedies. Prior to any governmental action to exercise its right of eminent domain, the government must negotiate in good faith with the landowner for an acceptable price for the land. In most cases the government will notify the landowner of serving a notice of intent. The notice would also consist of the property parameters, proposed use of the land, and a offer for the purchase. If an agreement can not be met, further court action will take place. As a landowner he has the right to oppose both the proposed taking and the amount of compensation offered. Ultimately, if administrative appeals fail, the landowner may petition in court, under the auspices