Free Essay

Kelo vs New London

In: Business and Management

Submitted By jwall1017
Words 1437
Pages 6
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 the redeveloper was unable to obtain the financing needed for the project and abandoned the project as a whole. The March of 2004 the case was first presented in Connecticut courts in which owners sued the city arguing that the city had distorted their eminent domain power. Kelo and the other appellants brought up the argument that the City of New London was in violation due to transfer of the land to the New London Development Corporation in which they said didn’t qualify as public use. On March 9th, 2004 the Connecticut state court issued a 4-3 decision in favor of the City of New London. The homeowners then asked the United States Supreme Court to appeal resulting in the United States Supreme Court issued a certiorari in which it gave an order to the lower court (State of Connecticut) to send the United States Supreme Court all documents in the case so that the higher court could reevaluate the lower court’s decision in the case. In order to receive a certiorari at least three members of the board must believe that the case involves a sufficiently significant federal question in the interest of the public. The Kelo case was the first eminent domain case heard since the 1980’s in which states and municipalities were slowly extending their uses of eminent domain. But the Kelo case brought up a different kind of argument because the development corporation that was to benefit by the eminent domain was actually a private entity in which the plaintiffs presented the argument that this was unconstitutional. The case was officially presented on February 22, 2005, with a ruling of 5-4 in favor of the City of New London winning coming on June 23, 2005. The decision was controversial but wasn’t the first time that the United States Supreme Court interpreted public use as public purpose. A previous case Hawaii Housing Authority vs Midkiff was referenced as Justice Stevens wrote “The court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public”. The majority opinion is the opinion of the judges who voted for the City of New London was written by Justice John Paul Stevens stated that because all the justices had agreed that City of New London was acting in the best public use of the last that this was considered to be legal. Since the city’s economy would also be benefiting by the development plan that it was to be considered to be deemed for public use as well. The minority opinion was written by Justice O’Conner which gives us the opinion of the people who voted against the City of New London. The main argument presented by O’Conner involved the Constitution on how the citizens have protection from the government abusing their power against eminent domain. She presented an argument on how it’s like a reverse Robin Hood because the rich take from the poor and give back to the rich. If the City of New London was to be allowed to do this that other cities all over the United States would be doing the same and that this would become the norm giving homeowners no rights and no protection against this happening. Homeowners would then be given the sense that no private property is safe from eminent domain seizures. The majority opinion I feel like changed the way they looked at the Fifth Amendment to the best public purpose not the best public use of the land in order to justify their ruling. I also feel like their ruling left the door open to many more eminent domain cases because they didn’t create a fine line between what was to be considered to be legal and illegal. I feel like the minority was also correct in saying that this will be considered the norm and therefor taking away the rights given to property owners through the constitution. I also couldn’t find anywhere that it was stated that there were negotiations for the property; I did find in an article that the plaintiffs in the case were not hold outs. Either the NLDC should have purchased the property rights from the owners or the City of New London should have to achieve the most efficient results. Nowhere could I find that any of this taken place, I find it would have been more justified if after failed negotiations that the City of New London would have used eminent domain then. Although not all efficient outcomes come from negotiations the eminent domain rule could have then been used to achieve the most efficient outcome for the public. I feel like the minority brought up great points on how the eminent domain was used only for the property to then be turned over to the NLDC which is indeed a privately held company. Eminent domain needs to be used on the best public uses not the best public purposes. I also feel like the NLDC should have taken the steps to indeed test if this development was a possibility, they should have taken a look at finance options before eminent domain was even exercised. Some good did come out of this though raising public awareness and having states present laws and statues against eminent domain abuse. I believe that the courts did indeed get the decision wrong and state legislatures did indeed step in to attempt to fix the bad decision from happening in the future. One year after the decision George W. Bush had presented an executive order which restricted the use of eminent domain. This order was given to protect property owners and that if eminent domain was exercised that it was done in order to truly benefit the public, not for public purposes. The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 was a bill that declared the federal government from exercising eminent domain power if they only justifying public use is economic development; and to impose the same limit on state and local government exercise of eminent domain power through the use of federal funds. This bill was presented to eliminate eminent domain abuse, it was written by Senator John Cornyn of Texas; his bill went to vote and was never passed to become law. In the aftermath of the Kelo case a huge backlash brought much attention to the eminent domain abuse issues. 43 states had passed constitutional amendments or statues that reformed eminent domain laws to better protect property owners.

Works Cited

(1) "KELO V. NEW LONDON." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. 23 June 2005. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html>.
(2) KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 November 2011. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108>.
(3) Lizan, Anthony. "Life After Kelo v. City of New London." Property Rights Alliance. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. <http://propertyrightsalliance.org/life-kelo-v-city-new-london-a2921>

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Eminent Domain

...taken were idle lands for roadways, not houses. The term private property as used here denotes land. The fourth amendment outstandingly forbids the seizure of private houses. In Kelo Vs City of New London, dated back to 2000, the city of New London had approved a project that, in the words of the Supreme court of Connecticut, was projected to create more the a thousand job opportunities, increase the revenue and to revitalize the economy of the economically crippled city, right from the waterfront areas to downtown Connecticut. The city had no intentions to open the condemned pieces of land to the general public, and neither were the private lessees of the properties legally entailed to function like regular carriers. The issue was whether the disposition of this property qualifies public use, subject to the Fifth Amendment. The term public use is broadly interpreted to mean ‘Public Purpose”, for the benefit of the whole society without locking anyone out. These projects included roadways, hospitals, and schools to far much more complicated projects as factories which were established with the hope of providing employment to the locals. It was held that the city’s recommended disposition of the petitioners’ private property qualified as a public use. Another case of interest is that of City of Oakland Vs Oakland raiders. This particular case dated back to 1980, where the owners of Oakland Raiders decided to re locate to Los Angeles. The city had intentions of acquiring it......

Words: 3810 - Pages: 16

Free Essay

Laws310

...with Costco’s more than $400,000. 99 Cents then sued the city seeking an order blocking the effort to take the 99 Cents property. a. How would you have ruled on the case when it was tried in 2001? Explain. b. Would the result be any different today after the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in the New London, Connecticut, case? Explain. See 99 Cents Only Stores v. Lancaster Redevelopment Agency, 237 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2001). Appeal dismissed, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4197. a. In 2001 is would of ruled in favor of the 99 cents store because it was privately owned. Only the government was benefiting from Costco due to the taxes. So I do not see how it could have been for public use. b. I think the result would be the same because the Supreme Court held that the taking by the city and sale to a private development company did qualify as a valid exercise of eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment, as the "public purpose" could also be interpreted as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Kelo v. City of New London, 549 U.S. 469 (2005). Thus, after the New London case, it would be a permissible use of eminent domain.  http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/the-queen-vs-dudley-and-stephens-1884-the-lifeboat-case/...

Words: 665 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Business Law

...Buss Law: Lindgren vs. GDT, LLC (96-98) Plaintiff: Lindgren/GDT, LLC Defendant: GDT, LLC/ Lindgren Facts: Lindgren came-up with an accessory concept, which she sold online and in a store in Iowa. She patented it in 2000. GDT started selling a product quite similar to hers at much higher prices through all of its distribution channels. When Lindgren found out she filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Iowa against GDT for infringement. GDT, claiming that it has no affiliation with the State, expressed its right to exercise its in personam jurisdiction and filed a motion to dismiss the case in Iowa. Yet, Lindgren countered by stipulating that online the company gave the option of delivering its products to Iowa (with FedEx). Ruling: Lindgren failed to make a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Yet, the court found that Lindgren’s claim could continue in the central district of California. GDT’s motion to dismiss was denied. Judicial Opinion: Due process requires that in order to subject a non-resident to the jurisdiction of a state’s court, the latter should have a certain minimum contact with it. The contacts with the state should be more than ‘random’, ‘fortuitous’ or ‘attenuated’. Use of a precedent: Zippo manufacturing case. The Zippo court observed that the likelihood that the personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and the quality of the commercial activity that an entity conducts over......

Words: 4325 - Pages: 18

Free Essay

Distributive Justice

...Additional Tools, Techniques and Dilemmas This document includes the cases and articles listed below in italics. You may find some of the principles described in the articles useful in doing your analysis of the cases. Velasquez, Distributive Justice Rich Dead, Poor Dead Kelo vs. City of New London _____________________________________________________________________________ Distributive Justice Manuel Velasquez Questions of distributive justice arise when different people put forth conflicting claims on society's benefits and burdens and all the claims cannot be satisfied. The central cases are those where there is a scarcity of benefits such as jobs, food, housing, medical care, income, and wealth-as compared to the numbers and the desires of the people who want these goods. Or (the other side of the coin) there may be too many burdens - unpleasant work, drudgery, substandard housing, health injuries of various sorts-and not enough people willing to shoulder them. If there were enough goods to satisfy everyone's desires and enough people willing to share society's burdens, then conflicts between people would not arise and distributive justice would not be needed. When people's desires and aversions exceed the adequacy of their resources, they are forced to develop principles for allocating scarce benefits and undesirable burdens in ways that are just and that resolve the conflicts in a fair way. The development of such principles is the concern of......

Words: 12435 - Pages: 50

Premium Essay

Hfjfgfjhf

...Constitutional Law- Supremacy Clause- “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…… shall be the Supreme law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby …..” Article VI Judicial Review- U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide that federal courts can declare a statute unconstitutional and void, but they can./Marbury v. Madison, 1803 introduced judicial review Activism v. Restraint- Over time, not a liberal vs. conservative issue.In the early days of the New Deal, judicial activism was responsible for striking down progressive measures. Originalism v. Living- When interpreting the Constitution, ask what the people who wrote it – or wrote the amendments – understood the provisions to mean. VS. To interpret the Constitution look to the language in the document and the understanding of the framers, but do so in light of the long history of common law which preceded and followed it. That gives you a mechanism for applying the document to situations which could never have been envisioned when the Constitution was written. Public v. Private Action- Companies and individuals can’t deprive you of your Constitutional rights, only a govt can. Commerce Clause- “The Congress shall have Power ……… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States …….”Article 1, Section 8 Affordable Healthcare Act- Nat. Fed. of Independent Businesses v. Sibelius (2012)/Focus: The individual mandate – a......

Words: 2002 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

M-Core Problem Solution

...Running head: PROBLEM SOLUTION: M-CORE Problem Solution: M-Core Problem Solution: M-Core M-Core is at the head of their industry and has planned to move forward with developing their new facility in New Oxford, a green environment. In becoming a part of the New Oxford community, M-Core will have an opportunity to embrace and become involved with the community’s needs and the environment that has become protected, helping to secure the future of the people while working within the company’s estimated budgets and timeframes. Describe the Situation Issue and Opportunity Identification M-Core is having difficult y negotiating acceptable deals with the remaining homeowners causing delays towards the development of the new research and development facility. The opportunity M-Core has is to develop creative ideas to resolve the conflict with the resistant homeowners by creating an alliance with Nature’s Gift Society through the implementation of a green plan during planning, developing, and implementing phases of their new facility. By creating the alliance, Nature’s Gift may ease the negotiations with the homeowners, minimize the need for legal actions to take the properties from the remaining homeowners, and avoid need for the Mayor’s involvement. Stakeholder Perspectives/Ethical Dilemmas M-Core desires to gain additional acreage to develop their facility to create the “chip” and a better workplace, while developing on land that displays serenity to inspire...

Words: 3379 - Pages: 14

Premium Essay

Bus Law

... from place to place. Most property falls into this category: a car, wallet, photograph, shirt, pen, and phone are all common examples of tangible personal property. Intangible personal property, on the other hand, is personal property that by its very nature does not have a physical existence as such, but is merely a right that can be owned, as opposed to a real, tangible object. Common examples of intangible property include stocks and bonds. Intellectual property, such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks, is personally owned but generally treated as a separate form of property by the law. A person who owns the copyright to a new book or patent to a new invention, for example, owns intangible property; the person may have a patent or copyright certificate that is a tangible piece of paper, but the thing owned—the expression of an idea or a new invention—is incapable of a physical existence and constitutes intangible property. Real property constitutes land and all things permanently attached to it. What characterizes real property and distinguishes it from tangible personal property is that it is by nature fixed and not capable of being easily moved from one place to another. Land, buildings, and fixtures are all considered part of the real property, as are the air above land and mineral rights below the surface of the land. Because modern business often involves all three types of property, a basic understanding of property law is essential for business students. A......

Words: 21517 - Pages: 87

Premium Essay

5 Steps to a 5 Ap English Langauge

... Editorial cartoon by Clay Bennett © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor (www.csmonitor.com). All rights reserved. Editorial cartoon by Jeff Koterba/Omaha World-Herald. “Eminent Domain,” excerpt from 60 Minutes, July 4, 2004. Reprinted by permission of CBS News Archives. From In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, copyright © by Truman Capote and renewed 1993 by Alan U. Schwartz. Used by permission of Random House, Inc. From “Introduction,” The Best Essays of 1988. Reprinted by permission of Russell & Volkening as agents for the author. Copyright © 1988 by Annie Dillard. From “States Curbing Right to Seize Private Houses,” by John Broder from the New York Times on the Web © The New York Times Company. Reprinted with permission. From “The Case for Flag-Burning. . .,” an editorial published June 27, 2006. Copyright © 2006 Los Angeles Times. Reprinted with permission. From What Is Marriage For? by E. J. Graff. Copyright © 1999. Reprinted by permission of Beacon Press, Boston. Jencks, Christopher. From a review and discussion of American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation’s Drive to End Welfare appearing in The New York Review of Books, December 15, 2005. Reprinted with permission from The New York Review of Books. Copyright © 2005 NYREV, Inc. Lapham, Lewis. Excerpt from Money and Class in America: Notes and Observations on Our Civil Religion. Copyright © 1988 by Lewis Lapham. Reprinted by permission. Lindberg, Todd. “The Star......

Words: 76988 - Pages: 308

Premium Essay

Analysis of Right to Work Laws

...“shops,” or workplaces, each measured according to an employee’s degree of choice in whether to join the recognized union: 1. Closed Shop In a Closed Shop, the company is required to only hire union members. Union membership would be a pre-condition of employment, just the same as any other pertinent professional certification or skill. We will not discuss this classification, except to acknowledge its historic existence, because it was made illegal by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. (Cornell University Law School, 2010) 2. Agency Shop Also known as a Union Shop, this is where employees select a union as their representative for bargaining with the employer. The company is not restricted to hiring union workers, but in most cases, new employees are ultimately required to become members of the union. (Nolo). This classification does not violate the Taft-Hartley Act’s restriction against requiring employees to join a union because of union security agreements. These agreements are written into union contracts; instead of requiring employees to join the union as a condition of employment, workers are required to pay agency fees or dues to the union, regardless of their union membership. (Nolo). Although this appears to be the middle ground between a closed shop and no union control, this classification is as close to a closed shop as we can get within the bounds of the Taft-Hartley Act. 3. Open Shop Although the Princeton University’s online dictionary......

Words: 5681 - Pages: 23

Premium Essay

Legl200

...as” natural right” these rights exist solely to man-made laws iii. Historical School: believe that the law reflects the cultural traditions of a people and emphasizes that contemporary law should focus on legal principles that have withstood the test of time iv. Sociological School: belief that law can and should change to meet new developments in society. Law is flexible. Promote justice where the legislature has failed or lagged behind the times v. Legal realism: tries to go beyond the written words and looks at economics & social impact of a particular interpretation or application of the law. They believe it can never be applied with total uniformity c. Keep in mind 2 important points: i. Several of these “belief systems” overlap and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. ii. Jurisprudence is a “philosophy” or a way of thinking about the law – and is NOT the law itself. 8. The world has 2 major legal systems: a. Common Law: system employed by: United States, England, Canada, India, New Zealand, Jamaica, Nigeria, and a few other countries colonized by England. i. The legal system emphasizes the role of judges in determining the meaning of laws and how they are applied. So significant is the role of judges that they determine the meaning of the Constitution and they can declare void the legislation of Congress and acts of the......

Words: 22614 - Pages: 91

Free Essay

Public Administration

...Halla Re I Just Wanna Spend My Life With You I'm In Love Mangalayam Mera Yaar Mila De Mere Sang Remix Mere Sang My Dil Goes Mmmm (English Club Mix) My Dil Goes Mmmm (Instrumental) My Dil Goes Mmmm N 'n' N - The Naughty Mix Naina Milaike Neal `n' Nikki New York Theme Pyaar Impossible Remix Pyaar Impossible Salaam Namaste (Dhol Mix) Salaam Namaste Sam's Theme Tu Jahaan Tune Jo Na Kaha Whats Goin' On You And Me Aaya Tere Dar Par Song Code 555368 555369 555370 555371 555375 555372 555376 555377 555378 555379 555380 555381 555382 555383 555384 555385 555386 555348 555388 555389 555390 555391 555392 555393 555394 555406 555395 555396 555397 555407 555408 555398 555399 555400 555368 555409 555402 555403 555404 555405 555410 Artist/Movie/Album Go Dhoom Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi Hai Mohabbatein Go Jhoom (CD 2) Mujhse Dosti Karoge Mohabbatein Pyaar Impossible Neal 'n' Nikki Pyaar Impossible Pyaar Impossible New York Saathiya Saathiya Saathiya Saathiya Pyaar Impossible New York Neal 'n' Nikki Neal 'n' Nikki Neal 'n' Nikki Saathiya Saathiya New York New York Salaam Namaste Salaam Namaste Salaam Namaste Neal 'n' Nikki Saathiya Neal 'n' Nikki New York Pyaar Impossible Pyaar Impossible Salaam Namaste Salaam Namaste New York Salaam Namaste New York Salaam Namaste Pyaar Impossible Veer-Zaara SL 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 Song Name Ab To Forever Aisa......

Words: 100551 - Pages: 403

Premium Essay

How Capitalism Will Save Us

...HOW CAPITALISM WILL SAVE US Why Free People and Free Markets Are the Best Answer is Today's Economy S T E V E FORBES and E L I Z A B E T H A M E S HOW CAPITALISM WILL SAVE US HOW CAPITALISM WILL SAVE US W h y Free People and Free Markets A r e t h e Best A n s w e r i n Today's E c o n o m y Steve Forbes AND ELIZABETH AMES CROWN BUSINESS ALSO BY STEVE FORBES Power Ambition Glory (coauthored with John Prevas) Flat Tax Revolution A New Birth of Freedom To the millions of individuals whose energy, innovation, and resilience built the Real World economy. Their enterprise, when unleashed, is always the answer. Copyright © 2009 by Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Ames All rights reserved. Published in the United States by Crown Business, an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc., New York. www.crownpublishing.com CROWN BUSINESS is a trademark and CROWN and the Rising Sun colophon are registered trademarks of Random House, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Forbes, Steve, 1947How capitalism will save us / Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Ames.—1st ed. p. cm. Includes index. 1. Capitalism—United States. 2. United States—Economic policy. 3. United States—Economic conditions. I. Ames, Elizabeth. II. Title. HB501.F646 2009 330.12'20973—dc22 2009032751 ISBN 978-0-307-46309-8 Printed in the United States of America DESIGN BY BARBARA S T U R M A N 1O 9 8......

Words: 210110 - Pages: 841