The city plan did not violate the constitutional taking clause. The plan was aimed at benefiting the public in New London economically by providing jobs to the unemployed and increasing the tax receipts that would ultimately boost the city's public finance and by so doing boost the economy necessary for the city's development. The takings clause protects the private property from conversion by the state for public use without just compensation. Although the eminent domain gives the state the right to acquire private land for public use, this 5th Amendment provision of the takings clause subjects such conversion to be legitimate, that is be for public use and the compensation be just what is viewed as be fair as per the market value (Turnbull, G. K et al., 2014). The plan was engineered to boost the low economy by providing jobs to the unemployed and increase the tax receipts that would eventually see the city's economy stabilize. This step is beneficial to the public both directly and indirectly and a legitimate public use of the justly acquired land. The economic benefits on the other hand appear to be secondary and incidental as brought forth by the dissenting judge. The developers seem to be the primary beneficiary of the acquisition and there is no surety that unemployment will be curbed and hence have the public benefit. All in all, the entire takings clause is objected towards just compensation of the private land owners where the government acquires such land for public use. From the foregoing the land was put into public use that is faced as economic development having compensated the owners justly. It thus follows that the takings clause was not violated.
Beatty, J. F., Samuelson, S. S., & Bredeson, D. A. (2013). Introduction to business law. In Introduction to business law (4th, Ch. 11). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Turnbull, G. K.,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document