Kelo vs. City of New London

Kelo vs. City of New London

Details of the Case:

The city bought out these private properties and claimed that the land was taken and sold to private developers in order to develop the land which would be used to try to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses. And create jobs and increase tax revenues,

The city carefully formulated a development plan that it believed would provide appreciable benefits to the community, As a result the owners of the properties taken argued that the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.

This right guarantees that the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. The property owners were justly compensated though, they argued that taking their private properties and selling it to private developers instead of using the land for the bettering of the community was not in their minds considered "public use."

The land that was taken was given to The Pfizer Cooperation which planned to build a massive new research facility. The cooperation widely used the right of eminent domain to obtain the land that was wanted to build on and all was in accordance with state law. The people who wanted to stay were served with eviction notices on Thanksgiving eve. But the conflict continued for 5 more years.

Susette Kelo

"Is an American hero. She is a woman who stood up for her rights and in the process stood up for the rights of all Americans. She was a homeowner in New London Connecticut that simply wanted to keep something that was incredibly valuable to her-the first home that she ever owned."

-Scott Bullock (lead attorney in case)

The Outcome

In the end The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London. The decision of the court is known as one of the most despised supreme court decisions in many years." In the decision, " the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, the majority argued, should be given deference. The takings here qualified as "public use" despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. The Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, the majority said, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.”

Bibliography

• http://www.oyez.org/
• http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108#sort=ideology
• http://thecommonconstitutionalist.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/kelo-v-city-of-new-london-ct.jpg
• http://www.nolandgrab.org/images/KeloHouse01.jpg
• http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ItalianDramaticClub2007.jpg

By Jack Meissner,

Izzy Briones,

and Morgan Van der Linde

The Case Overview

The Reaction

The Minority Vote

of the Court

Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent-or opposition- to the decision made by the rest of the court that, "something has gone seriously awry with this court's interpretation of the constitution."

The Results:

In this case the city of New London used its eminent domain authority-which is the states right to take private property for public use- to seize private property, which was then sold to private developers.

"The project that cost Susette Kelo her home has essentially gone nowhere."

The reaction of the Court's decision was immediate. The court felt the pressure of the public.

Where the house once stood now remains as a vacant lot. The city sponsered developer had been unable to secure financing because interest in the project is minimal.-the only jobs that have been generated there are for demolition crews.

Question:

Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city's bad economy?