Kelo VS New London1 Kelo VS New London By: Dale Travis April 13, 2013 Unit: 5 Case Study Prof Lerner Kaplan University Kelo VS New London2 Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner that property. (Legal Dictionary) In New London, Connecticut the economy hit a road bump, and the town’s government was looking for a way to generate the towns economy again.
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
order now
The unemployment rate was in double digits, and the towns population was at a very low point in nearly seventy-years. Because of this New London town officials were looking for away to change this, and were considering some ideas to change this. State and local government officials were looking for a certain part of the city where revitalization can occur. The Thames River made a decision to this, Fort Trumbull decided to use 115 private own properties, and 32 acres of an aband- oned naval facility. Inside this plan it included one section for a waterfront stores nd conference hotel for eighty private residences. This would also included one research facilities. By doing this state government officials were using the power of eminent domain to take private party for public use. However, there was some pro- testors were concerned about this, and wanted to challenge this idea. The attorney for the protestors claimed that this violated the Taking Clause. What is a Taking Clause? This is where the United States Supreme Court dec- Ided an important case involving the meaning of public use in the Fifth Amendment.
Where the US Supreme Court voted in 5 to 4 in favor of New London. Where New London can use the private property for public use. (The Fifth Amendment and Tak- Kelo VS New London3 ings of Private Property) Across the US there is different cases involving eminent domain, but some- times these cases never reverse back for public use. About 4 years ago the Village of Tinley Park needs a different location for their new library, and new location was established. Then, the library had a new home. However, the Village of Tinley Park id not want this property on there hands, and they thought a established realtor could sell the old vacant property. This did not happen, and the Village of Tinley Park had to buy back the land for public use. So, Tinley had a reversal of eminent domain where private land was now public land again. (This was a big embarrse- ment for the town. ) When there was a town meeting about this, and it was unani- mous agreed upon to make park for public use. Totally different cases about emin- ent domain, but with New London things were completely different.
However, did the city’s plans violate the Taking Clause? I do not consider that the town of New London made such a violation, but some citizens felt different about this. Even though the citizens made have been aware about this for some time, but was there a town vote about this. If there was a vote, and if the vote was unanimous. Then, there would have been no argument about the development inside New London, but if there was no vote. This is where I can actually relate to town of New London. Because when Tinley Park officials bought back the old library grounds.
Some people did not agree with the entire process of this even thought there was a unanimous vote for a new library. Kelo VS New London4 Even though the city could not take petitioners’ lands simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party. The takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan. Which was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land at least not in it’s entirely to use by the general public.
Plus, the city’s determination that the area at issue was suff- iciently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to def- erence. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community including, but not limited to new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with, other exercises in urban planning and development the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land use. With the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
To make this effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic develop- ment. Given the plan’s comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this court’s review in such cases. It is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the indivi- uals owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose the taking challenged here satisfy he Fifth Amendment. Kelo VS New London5 Petitioners’ proposal that the court adopt a new bright line rule that econo- mic development does not qualify as neither precedent supports a public use nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes that the court has recognized. Also rejected is petitioners’ argument that for takings of this kind the court should require a reasonable certain- ty that the expected public benefits will actually accrue.
Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the court precedent. The disadvantages of a height- ened forms of review are especially pronounced in this type of case. Where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties’ legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The court declines to second guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. In either case, about eminent domain there was argument about the public land, and some people did not agree to the measures.
However, there was enough evidence to support for new development inside New Boston. Depending upon on how New Boston is thriving today economically. It will have impact on future citi- sens, and how citizens will embrace their new town. Because those questions can only be answered by the citizens of New Boston. Kelo VS New Boston6 References Legal Dictionary http://www. legal-dictionary. thefreedictionary. com/eminentdomain The Fifth Amendment And Takings Of Private Property http://www. law2. umkc. edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings. htm
