Kelo vs New London

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 110
  • Published : May 5, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Kelo VS New London1

Kelo VS New London

By: Dale Travis

April 13, 2013

Unit: 5 Case Study

Prof Lerner

Kaplan University

Kelo VS New London2

Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use by a

state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise

functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the

owner that property. (Legal Dictionary) In New London, Connecticut the economy

hit a road bump, and the town’s government was looking for a way to generate the

towns economy again. The unemployment rate was in double digits, and the towns

population was at a very low point in nearly seventy-years. Because of this New

London town officials were looking for away to change this, and were considering

some ideas to change this.

State and local government officials were looking for a certain part of the city

where revitalization can occur. The Thames River made a decision to this,

Fort Trumbull decided to use 115 private own properties, and 32 acres of an aband-

oned naval facility. Inside this plan it included one section for a waterfront stores

and conference hotel for eighty private residences. This would also included one

research facilities. By doing this state government officials were using the power of

eminent domain to take private party for public use. However, there was some pro-

testors were concerned about this, and wanted to challenge this idea. The attorney

for the protestors claimed that this violated the Taking Clause.

What is a Taking Clause? This is where the United States Supreme Court dec-

Ided an important case involving the meaning of public use in the Fifth Amendment.

Where the US Supreme Court voted in 5 to 4 in favor of New London. Where New

London can use the private property for public use. (The Fifth Amendment and Tak-

Kelo VS New London3

ings of Private Property)

Across the US there is different cases involving eminent domain, but some-

times these cases never reverse back for public use. About 4 years ago the Village of

Tinley Park needs a different location for their new library, and new location was

established. Then, the library had a new home. However, the Village of Tinley Park

did not want this property on there hands, and they thought a established realtor

could sell the old vacant property. This did not happen, and the Village of Tinley

Park had to buy back the land for public use. So, Tinley had a reversal of eminent

domain where private land was now public land again. (This was a big embarrse-

ment for the town.) When there was a town meeting about this, and it was unani-

mous agreed upon to make park for public use. Totally different cases about emin-

ent domain, but with New London things were completely different.

However, did the city’s plans violate the Taking Clause? I do not consider

that the town of New London made such a violation, but some citizens felt different

about this. Even though the citizens made have been aware about this for some

time, but was there a town vote about this. If there was a vote, and if the vote was

unanimous. Then, there would have been no argument about the development

inside New London, but if there was no vote. This is where I can actually relate

to town of New London. Because when Tinley Park officials bought back the old

library grounds. Some people did not agree with the entire process of this even

thought there was a unanimous vote for a new library.

Kelo VS New London4

Even though the city could not take petitioners’ lands simply to confer a

private benefit on a particular private party. The takings at issue here would be

executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan. Which was not

adopted to benefit a...
tracking img