Kelo vs. the City of New England Research Paper

Exclusively available on IvyPanda Available only on IvyPanda

Power of eminent domain is “the ability to take private property for public use.” (New London, Connecticut) Kelo vs. the city of New England is the battle of eminent domain and whether it is constitutional. The case deals with the constitutional justification of taking away land even when ‘compensation is involved. “The new case focuses on the breadth of the “public use” phrase, and whether a condemnation violates property rights when it is not to eliminate blight and instead is for economic development.” (Biskupic 2004) Susette Kelo filed suit against the state for wanting to take away private property. (Mears 2005) Eventually, the case went in the favor of the state and the causes behind that decision are justifiable.

We will write a custom essay on your topic a custom Research Paper on Kelo vs. the City of New England
808 writers online

The economic well-being of a society is important because it circulates revenue and creating new jobs for local people. “In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.” (Susette Kelo, et al., petitioners c. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. 2005)

The City of New England has been in economic despair for a long time – the unemployment rate of the city in 1998 was double the unemployment rate of the state. (Susette Kelo, et al., petitioners c. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. 2005) When such economic despair exists it is justifiable to propose a revitalizing development program for the city.

One objection made by the petitioners was that acquiring private property would benefit private parties whereas the benefit is constitutionally supposed to be geared toward the public. The court defended this objection, “Quite simply, the government’s pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties. For example, in Midkiff, the forced transfer of property conferred a direct and significant benefit on those lessees who were previously unable to purchase their homes.

In Monsanto, we recognized that the “most direct beneficiaries” of the data-sharing provisions were the subsequent pesticide applicants, but benefiting them in this way was necessary to promoting competition in the pesticide market.” (Susette Kelo, et al., petitioners c. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. 2005) Just because a decision geared towards the public best interest coincidentally provides an opportunity for the private sector is no reason to abolish the idea of helping the public sector. The interests of the public are at the heart of this economic development and any opportunity provided to private businesses is simply incidental and natural.

Susette Kelo and her neighbors raised many objections against the redevelopment plan. (Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. 2005) The most compelling reason was the fact that these people would have to lose their homes. Taking away someone’s home for economic development sounds harsh, cruel, and unconstitutional.

Although compensation can be given to these homeowners the emotional value cannot be matched. (Mears 2005) Emotional conflicts though cannot be the driving force behind economic decisions. The City of New London has clearly been in economic despair for a while and a redevelopment program would help the entire city even though it might come at the cost of losing a few houses.

1 hour!
The minimum time our certified writers need to deliver a 100% original paper

Kelo vs. the City of New England has received a lot of media attention because of the suit filed by the homeowners in the city. The city of New England has been in economic distress for many years now any developmental program would not only help increase tax revenue but also create countless job opportunities. The boost to the private organizations will technically be in the best interest of the public and help the economy in the city flourish.

References

Biskupic, Joan. 2004. Justices take eminent-domain case. USA Today. Web.

Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. 2005. No. 04—108. Web.

Mears, Bill. 2005. Supreme Court backs municipal land grabs. CNN. Web.

New London, Connecticut. Institute for Justice. Web.

Susette Kelo , et al., petitioners c. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. Web.

Print
Need an custom research paper on Kelo vs. the City of New England written from scratch by a professional specifically for you?
808 writers online
Cite This paper
Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2021, October 13). Kelo vs. the City of New England. https://ivypanda.com/essays/kelo-vs-the-city-of-new-england/

Work Cited

"Kelo vs. the City of New England." IvyPanda, 13 Oct. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/kelo-vs-the-city-of-new-england/.

References

IvyPanda. (2021) 'Kelo vs. the City of New England'. 13 October.

References

IvyPanda. 2021. "Kelo vs. the City of New England." October 13, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/kelo-vs-the-city-of-new-england/.

1. IvyPanda. "Kelo vs. the City of New England." October 13, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/kelo-vs-the-city-of-new-england/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Kelo vs. the City of New England." October 13, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/kelo-vs-the-city-of-new-england/.

Powered by CiteTotal, automatic citation creator
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda. Request the removal
More related papers
Cite
Print
1 / 1