Essay on New London Eminent Domain

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.

Imagine getting a visitor at your front door, and the visitor offers you a very generous amount of money for them to take you property for public use. For some people it is the property they grew up on, and for others it is the property that has been passed down through family generations. That is what happens when private property owners experience eminent domain. Eminent domain can be a wonderful thing for big companies and powerful leaders. On the other hand, people lose their homes, or perhaps their farmland. Those who offer eminent domain often have big plans that can benefit a community, but the huge loss here is people losing their homes. Most companies will only enforce eminent domain if they have no other choice. Other companies do it purely for themselves. Eminent domain should be used for the good of mankind, because it has the power to put some good places in this world if done correctly.

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

The constitution puts it out clear that the person whose private property has been seized for public use is entitled to just compensation, which is a fair current cash market value of the property in question. This is quoted to be the price that a willing buyer would give and a willing seller would accept for the property. This is why it is referred to as the fair price because it was where the buyer and seller would reach at a consensus. Eminent Domain has affected very many people across all the counties in the United States of America each and every year. One such instance is that which occurred in 2002 in Long Beach, NJ.

The Kelo ET. AL. v. City of New London ET. AL., 545 U.S. 469 (2005) challenged every citizen’s idea of how far the government could go in determining what is considered the public good with regard to taking private property (Land) and giving it to a developer, using the “Taking Clause” of the fifth amendment of the US Constitution. In 1997, Susette Kelo bought a house in New London Connecticut overlooking the Thames river and view of the Atlantic Ocean coast line. But in 1998, the Phizer Corporation decided that they were going to build a research facility, which Ms. Kelo’s property was part, in New London. Phizer briefed and received city council approval on their plans for the facility and the land required, then they came together to take

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

The concept of eminent domain is the condemnation of property for the public’s well being or good for private use is not the original intention and should not be used in this way. Private corporations and individuals are using the initial purpose was for the acquisition of land for the building of railroads and highways. The use of eminent domain has changed over the years by law, government and legal interpretations. These changes have allowed private interest groups to petition the state and local governments for eminent domain to be declared on property where the owners refuse to sell. Each states position on eminent domain is decided by the legislature and the voters of the state for use by private corporations and individuals.

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.

This may seem controversial as some people may not be able to understand how public parks benefit anyone. Public parks may seem purely aesthetic and ornamental, adding no true value to society, therefore some would argue that the government has no justification for taking their property.

The first time I heard about eminent domain was when the State of Iowa wanted to move my family’s house to build more road way. This is something that affected my family. There was a constant struggle on whether or not we had to rebuild a new house or whether we were ever going to be paid enough for the land we did have. I know where I stand on this issue. I know how people are affected by this.

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

Eminent domain disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and the economically disadvantaged. For example, in San Jose, California, 95 percent of the properties targeted for redevelopment are owned by minorities, even though only 30 percent of businesses are owned by minorities. These groups are disproportionately affected because they are easy political and economic targets. Condemnations in minority or elderly neighborhoods are often easier because they are less likely or able to resist. Areas with low property values are targeted because they cost less and the State gains financially when they replace areas with low property values with higher values. / / When an area is taken for "economic development," the

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

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

The purpose of the paper research is to identify the world of property law that remains confusing to quite a number of people regarding personal and real property. Due to this confusion, a number of disputes arise when parties fail to reach an agreement especially when the seller includes the item in question as part of the sale of the realty and the buyer has a different view. This research will identify five examples of fixtures and real property in my house that will be enlightening especially pertaining the two gray areas. The research will also look at the determination made by commercial law pertaining to the evaluation of real property and fixtures and the exceptions when applying such tests. In the research, it will highlight the question of figuring out what fixtures are and the significant importance or raise this question with regards to the increase in the number of disputes associated with property law in case the value of the personal property exceeds the real property value. Finally, the research will identify different scenarios that may give rise to disputes regarding personal property and fixtures and how these fixtures are identified using different tests conducted by the property law courts in order to come to a consensus.