New London Vs Ncl Case Study

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.

According to New Jersey v. T.L.O Supreme Court Case (1999), a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, New Jersey discovered two 14-year-old freshmen smoking in a lavatory on March 7, 1980. Since smoking in the lavatory was a violation of a school rule, the teacher took the two girls to the Principal’s office, where they met with Theodore Choplick, the Assistant Vice Principal. During questioning, one girl admitted that has had violated the school rule, while the other girl, T.L.O, denied she smoked at all, much less that she had been smoking in the lavatory. Becoming suspicious, Mr. Choplick asked T.L.O to come into his office and to see her purse. Upon opening the purse, Mr. Choplick found a pack of cigarettes. When he went to grab for the cigarettes he noticed a package of cigarette rolling papers. Suspecting evidence of drug use could be found in the purse, Mr. Choplick proceeded to look through the purse. The searched discovered a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty

The Kelo vs City of New London case is one that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States with the issue involving eminent domain. Eminent domain is the transfer of property from one private party (Kelo) to a public party (City of New London), with proper compensation. The case brought to light the difference between what is considered to be public use and what is the best public purpose. Susette Kelo and fellow property owners owned property that was condemned by the city of New London to be used as further economic development. The properties were taken from the owners due to the fact a pharmaceutical company named Pfizer Inc, was planning to build a facility in the area which gave the New

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.

According to the facts, it seems that the sentiment of John (Cougar) Mellencamp's hit in the 1984 fueled the controversies basing on the court’s decision on June 23, 2005. The ruling stated that the local government or federal government was entitled to exercise eminent dominant rules to enable them acquire private property and utilize it for purposes of economic development. “Eminent domain also referred to as condemnation, is the act of taking private property and making it public property by the local governing authority, state, or federal government” (Bradley 65). The private property taken away is converted to public property for public use.

The power of eminent domain was originally solely exclusive to the federal government. The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment extended this power to the states, but Supreme Court decisions in the 1870s “refused to extend the just compensation requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment,” and consequently, abuse of the power was common (Jost). Twenty eight years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the “just compensation” clause was applied to the states by Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, in which the Bill of Rights was declared to also apply to the actions of state governments in an attempt to stop the series of uncompensated takings and other abuses. These abuses continue

Note cases that may apply. Mcdonald v. City of Chicago, District of Columbia v. Heller.

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

The Defendant Evelyn Ellis, the owner of the property in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Alabama Bureau of Investigation (ABI) sieged during a joint Narcotics Task Force operation conducted a drug “buy and bust”. Her husband was convicted of selling drugs on the property. He was known for not only selling drugs, but his previous acts of violence, including murdering his previous wife. The government sieged the property in accordance with the statute that provided for civil forfeit of real property, unless the owner did not know or consent to any illegal activities going on her property.

Mandatory inclusionary zoning violates the 5th and 14th Amendments. Lack of affordable housing across the country is an issue that has gained national attention, and some areas in the country have resorted to zoning strategies to address the problem. For example, builders in Seattle who take advantage of the Incentive Zoning program will receive additional floor area in exchange for including affordable housing units in their developments (Director’s Rule, 2015). In contrast, mandatory inclusionary zoning is the unconstitutional practice of requiring private developers to include a specified percentage of affordable housing in their projects (Lerman, 2006). Mandatory inclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment. It also violates the life, liberty and property interest protections of Due Process as well as the equal protection provisions under the 14th Amendment.

As the legal hands of time travel forward, we have witnessed many times the meaning of private property change drastically and the rights of property owner’s disintegrate through the success of numerous limiting cases on their overall rights. The State v. Shack 277 A.2d 369 (N.J. 1971) case surfaced in court as an issue of trespassing, but transformed into a case about whether it is legal for a property owner dominion over their property can include the destiny of individuals of their rights while they remain on the property. This transformation seems to be the problematic aspect of the case under review. Since the trespassing statute was applied and the defendants charged the case should have been finalized, however, the defendants did not agree with the application of the law and appealed. Although there was no misapplication of the trespass statute, the defendants felt that the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 2862(b)(1) was being violated by the plaintiff. Given the huge stretch from trespassing to violating

The district is to benefit from subsidiary programs including new streetscape traffic calming plans, municipal vegetation, street lighting, signage, recreational facilities, public parks, and preservation of historic structures. Public oversight measures within the Redevelopment Plan ensure that use of eminent domain on property zoned by the project is prohibited for all residential property and generally prohibited without the scrutiny of the Project Action Committee in due process. The project isn’t only meant to develop affordable housing but also stimulate economic development, community enhancement, and public cohesiveness. Most notably, regulations featured in the Redevelopment Plan include quotas to for low-income housing that should prove effective in overturning district gentrification.Gentrification is defined as the displacement of one group of people in an urban area due to an influx of a wealthier group of people which can

The New London Development Corporation (NLDC) was authorized to cease the property of those refusing to sell their land. These homeowners, consequently, suffered from verbal & physical harassment from the City, thereby making is easier for the Institute of Justice (IJ) to present a case, arguing that the urban renewal project displayed elements of “eminent domain abuse” by forcibly evicting people from their homes. It was argued that “if it is not necessary to take particular property under the guise of accomplishing a public purpose, the taking in any sense cannot be for a public use.” Further, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor emphasized that are only three possible variations of takings that comply with public use requirements; (i) A transfer of private property to the public. (ii) A transfer of private property to common carriers, such as railroads & public utilities. (iii) A transfer of private property to private parties, but only in certain circumstances (Rutkow, 2006). Justice O’Connor, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, disagreed with the standpoint of Justice Anthony Kennedy

As the U.S. Constitution states, clearly in the “takings clause” of the Fifth Amendment, “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Property right issues and political momentum include increasing government regulation of private property, and supreme court protections for private property are tightening. Societal goals are sometimes pursued through government restrictions on the use of private property. Eminent domain state and local government have the authority to acquire private property for public use while taking is an unconstitutional government appropriation of private property rights.

The property that Ambler Realty owned was divided into the three different areas of classes and it prevented Ambler Realty from developing the land for industrial purposes. Ambler Realty filed the lawsuit because of the zoning ordinance that they said ultimately decrease the value of the land, limited the use of the land, prevented the sale of the land and the also claimed that it violated their right to due process. Amber