Kelo vs. City of New London
Kelo vs. City of New London
Legal Facts: 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. The city of New London Connecticut had made economic recovery efforts to sustain a severely downtrodden local economy. Those efforts included a plan to acquire 115 parcels of real estate in order to redevelop an area of commercial, residential and recreational elements. The plan consisted of removing homes to build a new development in order to create jobs, increase tax revenue, and better allow for the city to capitalize on the plans of the major pharmaceutical company Pfizer which had already planned to build a large facility close by. Of the 115 homes, some homeowners, including Susette Kelo, refused to sell and filed suit stating that the removal of their homes violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. New London exercised eminent domain stating the public use stipulation.
Ethical Facts: The right to life, liberty, and property could be construed as being violated should a government acquire land in order to increase tax revenue and build improved economic conditions. When looking at the ethical issues of Kelo v. City of New London, John Locke’s “Lockean Rights” come into question. Business ethics are in question when private land is being acquired only to be given to another private individual(s).
Legal Analysis
Issues Listing:
- The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause states that eminent domain must be used with “just compensation” and that States have the power of eminent domain should the land acquired be used for a meaningful public use.
- The question at hand in center of suit is whether or not public purpose could be construed as public use without violating the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Under the public use
Legal Facts: 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. The city of New London Connecticut had made economic recovery efforts to sustain a severely downtrodden local economy. Those efforts included a plan to acquire 115 parcels of real estate in order to redevelop an area of commercial, residential and recreational elements. The plan consisted of removing homes to build a new development in order to create jobs, increase tax revenue, and better allow for the city to capitalize on the plans of the major pharmaceutical company Pfizer which had already planned to build a large facility close by. Of the 115 homes, some homeowners, including Susette Kelo, refused to sell and filed suit stating that the removal of their homes violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. New London exercised eminent domain stating the public use stipulation.
Ethical Facts: The right to life, liberty, and property could be construed as being violated should a government acquire land in order to increase tax revenue and build improved economic conditions. When looking at the ethical issues of Kelo v. City of New London, John Locke’s “Lockean Rights” come into question. Business ethics are in question when private land is being acquired only to be given to another private individual(s).
Legal Analysis
Issues Listing:
- The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause states that eminent domain must be used with “just compensation” and that States have the power of eminent domain should the land acquired be used for a meaningful public use.
- The question at hand in center of suit is whether or not public purpose could be construed as public use without violating the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Under the public use