...Kelo vs City of New London 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 London Development Corporation the motivation to develop the surrounding area to help increase the current New London economy. The property was to be used as a redevelopment plan which was promised to generate 3,169 new jobs and tax revenues of $1.2 million per year. The court decided in a 5-4 decision that the benefits given to the community outweighed the benefits of Susette Kelo owning the property; the courts determined this as permissible public use under the Fifth Amendment. The City of New London had agreed with Susette Kelo to compensate for moving the Kelo’s house to a new location and substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The property eventually became an empty lot which was then transferred to a city dump due to...
Words: 1437 - Pages: 6
...Student name Institution name Date Introduction Question: Is the policy of eminent domain providing for the public welfare, through the taking of privately owned property, using a rightful procedure involving due process and just compensation as it was intended to do when the policy was founded? 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 to exercise eminent domain, provided protection to individuals, and protected the property rights of citizens. Shortly after the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the federal guarantee of “just compensation” applicable to the states. The use of eminent domain power to promote economic development, particularly in urban centers of the United States, has become the focus of significant controversy in this present day. This is commonly done when the acquisition of property is needed for the completion of certain project. Projects intended for the public good such as highways, bridges, schools, and government buildings have been created from Eminent Domain. The policy pertains to every independent government. It requires very little...
Words: 3810 - Pages: 16
...When Should Eminent Domain be Used? When should a city or state use their eminent domain powers? Over the past few years there have been a couple of cases that raised the questions of when eminent domain should be used. One of the most controversial cases in the history of the United States was the Kelo v New London Supreme Court ruling. In order to generate tax revenue, add jobs, and to prevent bankruptcy, the government’s right to initiate eminent domain for public good is a necessary evil. Eminent domain in definition is “the right or power of public purposes without the owner’s consent on payment of just compensation” (“Eminent Domain History”). Eminent domain has been a part of the United States ever since the constitution was created. Eminent domain is not stated in the constitution. However, it is implied at the end if the Fifth Amendment, " [no person should] be deprived of life, liberty, or property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (U.S. Constitution). Eminent domain is not new to the United States. The first eminent domain case was “in 1879 the Supreme Court, in the case of Boom Co. v. Patterson, (98 U.S. 403) said that eminent domain appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty" (“Draw the Line”). After World War II, eminent domain was used on a regular basis. "In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Berman v Parker that private projects meet the definition if...
Words: 1214 - Pages: 5
...Ownership is limited by a superior ownership. In the United States the government has an ultimate ownership right in all land. This right is known as eminent domain. Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property from a citizen, even when that citizen refuses to voluntarily sell the property. In the United States, use of the eminent domain power is limited by a clause in the Fifth Amendment of the constitution, which states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. Long established purposes for the eminent domain power have been for the building of roads and public buildings, but it has become increasingly common for state or local governments to use the power for redevelopment projects. The city of New London, Connecticut established a private development corporation to redevelop a neighborhood near the shore of Long Island Sound with the goal of revitalizing the depressed area. A group of home owners, who lived on the targeted land, including Susette Kelo, decided to fight the issue rather than allow their homes to be destroyed. The Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London established that eminent domain can be used for economic redevelopment projects. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling against the homeowners established that the Fifth Amendment's "public use" requirement is merely a "public purpose" requirement. The City of New London only needed to anticipate that the public will benefit in...
Words: 279 - Pages: 2
...located along a river frontage that is four miles downstream from a dam erected in the 1930’s by the state government. In 1996, the area experienced increased precipitation. By the spring, an emergency inspection of the dam by engineers concluded that water must be released or the valley could suffer a catastrophic flood. The engineers acknowledged that releasing the water in the recommended manner would cause some limited flooding. As a result, Mr. Appleseed’s fruit orchard was flooded and he lost his crop for that year and many trees on his property were permanently destroyed. I will present my argument that this temporary flooding was a taking as defined by our text and was done so under eminent domain. When a property is taken in this manner the owner is justly compensated for the loss according to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Keywords: eminent domain, taking, temporary flooding The practice of taking by eminent domain is deeply rooted in history long before it was written about in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term itself was taken from the legal treatise De Jure Belli et Pacis, which was written by Hugo Grotius in 1625. Grotius, whose various texts are considered the foundations for international law, defined the power as follows: The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case...
Words: 1221 - Pages: 5
...Eminent Domain Under the Fifth Amendment of United States Constitution, the government is provided the power to enforce eminent domain and take private property for public use. This provision allows this provision as long as adequate compensation is being made for the property. Article 1, Section Seventeen under the Texas Constitution prohibits the taking, damaging or destruction of property for public use without adequate compensation. Generally, there are four elements of eminent domain but ultimately the actor must be the state or a private party authorized by the state to condemn the property. The power to condemn must be conferred by the legislature and only upon a two-thirds vote of both houses will it be granted. The primary private parties that are empowered to perform eminent domain are gas or electric corporations, groundwater conservation districts and common carrier pipelines. Once the property has been identified, the Condemner must provide plans for the public project and indicate the exact location of the private land needed for the project. Once this information is acquired, a declaration must be made that certain property rights must be obtained to complete the project and that all property owners involved must be notified. Element one consists of the property taken must be for public use and in 2009, voters approved a constitutional amendment further clarifying public use. To understand the purpose of public use, it is necessary to note it is statutorily...
Words: 965 - Pages: 4
...by the United States constitution. Costco, a big box retailer, wanted to expand into next door space leased to 99 Cent Only Stores. Costco told the city it would move to Palmdale if it could not expand. Lancaster tried to buy 99 Cents' lease, but the company refused. Lancaster then used its power to emenent domain to condemn the 99 Cents property for the purpose of making city contrasted 99 Cents property for the purpose of making it available to Costco. the city noted that blight might follow if Costco left, and the city contrasted 99Cents' under $40,000 per year in sales taxes generated with costco's more then $400,000. 99 Cents then sued the city seeking an order blocking the effort to take the 99 Cents property Eminent domain allows states the right to take over private property, at fair market value, for public use. Due the declining economy of Lancaster, I would rule in favor of the state to take over 99 Cent Only Stores Property thereby allowing Costco to move in. The additional sales tax generated by allowing Costco to take over the property of 99 Cent Only Store would allow Lancaster to continue independently as a productive county. The present negative of eminent domain, in this case, wieghs far less than the positive outcome of ruling in favor of Costco. B. Would the result be any differnet today after the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in the New London, connecticut case? Explain According the to Supreme Courts ruling, the city can file for eminent domain even...
Words: 343 - Pages: 2
...Introduction: Throughout history, The United States has been heavily reliant on oil and oil-rich countries. The present economic situation summons a domestic alternative, considering oil is addressed as “black gold”. Recently, pipelines have grown into a considerable means of transportation for fuels in various states, specifically throughout Alaska. While President Obama envisions that one day the United States will be energy independent, we have yet to attain this. However, some believe the Keystone XL pipeline could reduce our dependency on foreign oil, while others believe this project is a step in the wrong direction, putting us further away from energy independence. The Keystone XL pipeline is presented as safe and reliable, creating various jobs for our economy, while environmental groups argue this pipeline could be detrimental to the environment. These clashing arguments cause a question to arise: Should the United States Government authorize the Keystone XL pipeline to import tar sand oil from Canada? Various citizens, environmental groups, and politicians have outlined their concerns regarding the Keystone XL pipeline. Some of the social problems that arise from the proposed pipeline is environmental damage, including greenhouse gas emissions and potential oil spills. Tar sands are notorious for being one of the dirtiest types of oil in the industry and far more polluting than conventional oil with more than 1,400 known pollutants emitted by oil sands operations...
Words: 570 - Pages: 3
...of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, reactivated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a non-profit entity for land development in the city, specifically the Fort Trumbull area vacated by the U.S. Navy. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed an interest in locating a research and production facility in the area. The city advised the NLDC to move forward with its plans. Over 90 acres of property were purchased and acquired through eminent domain for the development of residential housing, recreational, marina, retail and industrial parcels. Of the 90 acres, thirty-two of the acres came from Fort Trumbull and the remainder from private owners. All private owners, except 15, sold to the city for the project. The remaining 15 held out not for money, but for emotional and sentimental reasons. The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the taking of the private property under eminent domain. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and grouped all 15 cases in one appeal. IV. LEGAL ISSUES: Is the use of eminent domain to acquire property by the government and redirect for private use repugnant to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”? Is the taking of property from A and giving it to B for economic development a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment? V. COURT DECISION: In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Connecticut Supreme...
Words: 1569 - Pages: 7
... | Eminent Domain: Being Abused? July 4, 2004 [pic] |[pic]The City of Lakewood, Ohio was trying to use | | |eminent domain to force Jim and Joanne Saleet out of | | |their house in order to make way for expensive | | |condominiums. (AP) | | |Quote | | |[pic] | | |"For them to come in and tell me how much my | | |property's worth and for me to get out because they're| | |bringing in somebody else when I own the land is | | |unfounded to me.” | | |Shop owner Randy Bailey of Mesa, Ariz. | | |[pic] | | (CBS) Just about everyone knows that under a process called eminent domain, the government can (and does) seize private property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse. But did you know the government can also seize your land for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good"? Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing. Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's determined...
Words: 1946 - Pages: 8
...these as necessities verses privileges and continue to abuse them. Welfare fraud is an ongoing abuse, and new government regulations need to be put into effect to help alleviate the current and persistent welfare dilemma. Congress has implemented welfare reform legislations that simply have not helped or changed much. The question regarding the welfare system continues to remain the same; what is wrong with welfare and can it be fixed? A question that is not simple, nor does the question have a simple answer. However, one thing is very clear; welfare is not working and needs to change, desperately. The current welfare system is unfair to the taxpayers who are paying for the failed programs that the government, specifically the New York State legislators, have timelessly sat by and done little to nothing, as well as the poor who remain trapped in a system that takes away self-reliance and hope for the children of the recipients. Although current liberal systems want everyone to believe that aid is temporary and very few recipients receive welfare for an extended period of time, this is simply untrue. The public is lead to believe that the current welfare system does not promote long-term independence, this is so very inaccurate. The PRWORA (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act) legislation has gained the most public attention, the Act had taken on numerous changes. One of the legislative proposals from the Clinton administration to receive Congressional approval...
Words: 1422 - Pages: 6
...Micro and macro economics play a huge role in businesses. Everything from demand in a particular market, to the decision making based on the entire economy. Without these two key elements, a company would have no professional structure. What is the difference between these two terms and why are they so important? Microeconomic is the main study of economics in a market. It takes a close look on how consumers are using their money and to what extent they are willing to go to obtain these products. Many people every day of course buy the essential needs. Gas, food, water, and anything else an individual needs to get through their day. What are the consumers buying the most of in relates to brands? How much are they buying and how many people purchase these items and of course how much are they spending. In micro economics we take all this information into account. This is essential when a company is either releasing a new product or changing their prices. Usually the data we gather from current sales of your competition in a certain market will reflect your company as well. Competition is a widely familiar term in America. It is also a very repeated study between company’s. A normal business pays large attention to their competitors because it determines a normal grossing of sales. If you think about, every sale that goes to another company could have been a sale to a different business. They like to gather information about why the customer chose this company...
Words: 3994 - Pages: 16
...Eminent domain is described as the power of the government to take private property for public use. The “Taking’s Clause” is described in the United States Constitution as “..Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. In the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, the city of New London did not violate the Taking’s Clause. It is stated in the case that the city purchased the property of 15 of the 24 owners. They were taking the property to build a research facility, a hotel and also stores and private residences. These are all for public use. Of course I can see how the homeowners would think that it was more for private use, the city of New London would be making profits from the sale of residential property and also from the building of the businesses. However they are for public use. Since the government had to take the landowners to court the government had to file suit to seek “condemnation” of the land. This is just stating that they are offering a just price for the land and awarding the title to the government. This was the case a few years back in the county I live in. I live in Crawford County, Ohio and the State of Ohio was working to rebuild a public highway. While they were offering large amounts of money to the land owners, a few of them tried to stand strong and not sell. Unfortunately they were forced to sell and then received less than the other landowners. I understand why they didn’t want to...
Words: 393 - Pages: 2
...him under the pressure of necessity. Necessity will excuse an act which would otherwise be a crime.”(justiceharvard) After reading this I believe that they did what they had to do in order to survive. They said the boy was weak and wouldn’t have made it anyway. They will have to live with the decision they made but they got to live because of it. b. No, he used it as a means to survive. If he would have just killed the boy to kill him and not use his flesh to survive then he would be a murderer. By eating the boy’s flesh he showed that he only committed the crime to survive. Question 11 Page 210 11. Lancaster, California, located about 45 miles from Los Angeles, was trying to build its local economy but was tripped up by the United States Constitution. Costco, a big-box...
Words: 665 - Pages: 3
...statute of the income tax was termed as being unconstitutional. It was officially termed as being unconstitutional in the year of 1895 for which an amendment which was not constituted in the congress. It was later challenged in the case of Pollock versus the farmers and it was then that the income tax norm was held totally unconstitutional by the supreme court of USA. It was due to the fact that it imposed a tax which was direct by nature on the real property as well as the personal property that was invested. 3. The federal statute authorizing the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to make payments to states for the value of materials stockpiled near federal highway construction projects in conformity with the project specifications. a. The Secretary, from time to time as the work progresses, may make payments to a State for costs of construction incurred by the State on a project. Such payments may also be made for the value of the materials— b. that have been stockpiled in the vicinity of the construction in conformity to plans and specifications for the projects; and c. that are not in the vicinity of the construction if the Secretary determines that because of required fabrication at an off-site location the material cannot be stockpiled in such vicinity. 4. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.). (Act) requires the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce (depending on jurisdiction) to determine whether...
Words: 1228 - Pages: 5
