Case Study: Kelo V. City Of New London

The cities and states that use eminent domain to acquire land in order to keep

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

America's government system is powerful. One way the government flexes their muscles is through eminent domain. Eminent domain is the government's power to seize land from one and give it over to another. Most times, eminent domain is used to improve the city. There are a lot of tensions between whether eminent domain is morally right or even constitutional.

Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder, in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19, subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed, and argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it must find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the acts that constituted the past pattern of child abuse and he also argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove past pattern of child abuse

Amongst topics of conversation regarding eminent domain, one will find regulatory usage of land, seizing of land for public use, and the most controversial of late, the seizing of land from a private owner and giving it to a more economically beneficial, often politically connected private owner. Kelo v New London (US 2005), has prompted dozens of proposals to reform eminent domain practices legislatively. Most of these proposals would restrict the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private individual to another. It is one thing to have a city claim property to further the development of the city by building roads, schools, etc. It is another thing altogether for the government to seize a property so as to gain money from higher taxation. For many years, however, courts have read the public-use restraint broadly, enabling governments to take property from one owner, often small and powerless, and transfer it to another, often large and politically connected, all in the name of economic development, urban renewal, or job creation.

Parties: Parminder Kaur & Amanjit Kaur (Petitioners) v. New York State Urban Development Corporation (Respondent)

MILLERSBURG — A local man who admittedly filmed coworkers using an employee bathroom now faces the potential of local jail time.

Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the U.S. Supreme Court answered “yes” to the question of whether or not taking land for the sole purpose of economic improvement would fall into the realm of public use requirement set forth in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

According to the facts, it seems that the sentiment of John (Cougar) Mellencamp's hit in the 1984 fueled the controversies basing on the court’s decision on June 23, 2005. The ruling stated that the local government or federal government was entitled to exercise eminent dominant rules to enable them acquire private property and utilize it for purposes of economic development. “Eminent domain also referred to as condemnation, is the act of taking private property and making it public property by the local governing authority, state, or federal government” (Bradley 65). The private property taken away is converted to public property for public use.

The Kelo ET. AL. v. City of New London ET. AL., 545 U.S. 469 (2005) challenged every citizen’s idea of how far the government could go in determining what is considered the public good with regard to taking private property (Land) and giving it to a developer, using the “Taking Clause” of the fifth amendment of the US Constitution. In 1997, Susette Kelo bought a house in New London Connecticut overlooking the Thames river and view of the Atlantic Ocean coast line. But in 1998, the Phizer Corporation decided that they were going to build a research facility, which Ms. Kelo’s property was part, in New London. Phizer briefed and received city council approval on their plans for the facility and the land required, then they came together to take

The power of eminent domain was originally solely exclusive to the federal government. The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment extended this power to the states, but Supreme Court decisions in the 1870s “refused to extend the just compensation requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment,” and consequently, abuse of the power was common (Jost). Twenty eight years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the “just compensation” clause was applied to the states by Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, in which the Bill of Rights was declared to also apply to the actions of state governments in an attempt to stop the series of uncompensated takings and other abuses. These abuses continue

The project was unable to obtain investments and its plans were abandoned in the end. The promises of new jobs and an increased tax revenue were all forsaken. Today, the property that was once a neighborhood for families, is a vacant property with no beneficial purpose to the community that it was meant to serve. American’s view of eminent domain, because of the Susette Kelo case, have changed dramatically since seeing the results from the economic project in New London. More Americans believe that eminent domain should only be exercised in the case of benefiting the public and not for the purpose of advancing economic activities of private parties. The case of Kelp V. New London explains how important it is as public administrators to view and interpret policies to make better decisions on how the process of implementation can better serve the needs of society for the greater

In Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), “the Commission required that petitioner [Florence Dolan] dedicate the portion of her property lying within the 100-year floodplain for improvement of a storm drainage system along Fanno Creek and that she dedicate an additional 15-foot strip of land adjacent to the floodplain as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway” in order to relieve traffic congestion to and from her plumbing and electric supply store (Dolan v. City of Tigard 1994, 2). This case differs, but in both Nollan and Dolan, the City failed to make an individualized determination that the required dedications are related to the projected impact of the proposed development. Surely, in both cases the nexus test was used to determine if the

On past occasions, the Supreme Court Justices have upheld takings that ultimately resulted in a private party possessing the land. This has occurred, for example, to allow the development of a plot of land that holds future benefits to the local economy, and in instances of urban renewal, where a new neighborhood goes up in place of an old and blighted one. The court case Kelo v. City of New London was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in favor of the City of New London to heed its future economic development plans. The leading plaintiff Susette Kelo, sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its power of eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled

Residents of the land, now “condemned” challenged the City’s authority. When the Supreme Court decided Kelo, it began of an evolving set of tensions across the United States over defining “public use.” Many state legislatures banned eminent domain for economic development or several other specific authorized public uses. (A&M)