Preview

Kelo V. City of New London

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
774 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Kelo V. City of New London
Facts
New London, CT declared a "distressed municipality" due to decades of economic decline.
State and local officials targeted New London for economic revitalization.
State authorized bonds to support planning activities including a state park and private development. Pfizer announced that it planned to build on the Fort Trumbull area.
Fort Trumbull comprises 115 privately-owned properties. Development plan encompasses seven parcels:
1. Waterfront conference hotel at the center of a small urban village.
2. 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood linked by a public walkway.
3. Office space.
4. A- support site for state park or marina; B- marina/riverwalk.
5. 6, 7- Land for office and retail space.
Plan designed to revitalize the downtown area and make the city more attractive and create leisure and recreational opportunities.
City Council authorized NLDC to purchase property or acquire it through eminent domain.
Negotiations with Ps failed, and so condemnation proceeding was initiated.
Procedural History
Superior Court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the takings of properties in 4A, but not in parcel 3.
Supreme Ct of CT held that the takings were valid.
Issues
Can a city condemn private land under the Takings Clause with the intent of giving that land directly to private developers to encourage economic development?
Does the city's plan have a public purpose?
Holding/Rule
A city can condemn private lands with the intent of giving that land to private developers to encourage economic development because economic development is a public purpose.
Reasoning
It has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even with just compensation.
Also can't take it for the pretext of a public purpose when real purpose is private.
However, a State may transfer the property if future use by the public is the purpose of the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Usually there will be some conflict where there is opposition to proposals to develop land;…

    • 423 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the 2005 US Supreme Court decided on the case of Kelo vs City of New London. Inherent to the case was a challenge to the concept of “eminent domain” and its relation to the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. The town of New London, CT, planned to develop an area of 90 acres, divided into 7 parcels, along the Thames River / Fort Trumball area in an effort to revitalize the town’s ailing economy. The project 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 areas1. Plans…

    • 307 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Eminent Domain

    • 622 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The ancient right, for the government to take property from an individual with out consent for a common good is called Eminent Domain. Some examples of a common good are, to build a dam, an airport, a hospital or a highway. The U.S. constitution understands that right; as long as “just compensation” is paid they are permitted to take the privet property for public use.…

    • 622 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Nolans requested that the Naabs remove the garage from their property. When the Naabs refused, a lawsuit ensued. Who Wins?? (Adverse Possession)…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    1. Use the land already purchased: This is a huge project and with this they have already bought and acquired land. Instead of getting them out of town New London can simply use what they already have bought and changed the plans. This is a medium ground for both of the parties involved.…

    • 593 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Facts: In 1998, the city of New London, Connecticut, authorized a $3.5 million bond issue in support of plans initiated by the New London Development Corporation (NLDC). This decision followed a state designation of the area as a “distressed municipality” and the closing of a US Naval facility, which employed over 15,000 people. The NLDC plans proposed the development of about 90 acres of land in the Fort Trumbull area of New London. The proposed developments would utilize the 32 acres on which the naval base had been situated, as well as more than 115 privately owned properties. The proposition included plans for 80 new residencies as well as a substantial commercial district…

    • 392 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Eminent Domain Case Study

    • 1722 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Eminent domain is the power of a state or a national government take private property for public use (Property). Before anything, the city offices should have notified Martin ahead of time that his beach house was in jeopardy of being taken away. This could have been accomplished, by the city making an offer of some sort to purchase Martin’s property before resorting to an eminent domain (Council). According to Cornell University Law School, Kelo v. New London (04-108) 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the city invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development (Hashmall). It was appropriate here, since the main purpose was to resolve the challenges of individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan, unquestionably serving a public purpose (Hashmall). However, this is not the case for Martin. The “Future home of the Tar Heel Family Resort” was being built with hopes of attracting new businesses and jobs, not necessarily being used for public or civic services as well as economic development. In other words, this new feature was more of a main attraction to help their business…

    • 1722 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Mix-Used Development In Downtown Los Angeles Downtown mixed-use developments are solutions to solve urban downtown challenges and impact the economy in attracting business, people, investment, and tourist. Downtown Los Angeles has gain success in changing zoning ordinance to adaptive reuse. The private and public sectors are working together to revitalize this area for opportunity in many aspects. A dynamitic downtown will be complete with addition of L.A Live, a mixed-use project that will have entertainment, shopping, dinning, jobs, and residential accommodations agglomerate together.…

    • 794 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    There are advantages to private property: It keeps without spoiling; it is tradable for what one really needs; it can be accumulated without waste; it creates and incentive to work hard.…

    • 513 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    According to Chapter 25 of Real Estate Principles by Charles J. Jacobus, zoning laws have been around for over a century. These laws regulate how certain parcels of land can be used. Sometimes these laws can benefit people in certain areas while other times it can lead to decreases in land value. Residents in Northwest Side, located in San Antonio, Texas, and adjacent neighborhoods believe that the latter is taking place.…

    • 307 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Cypres in Trust

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages

    * Property is given to charity which ceases to exist at the date the gift takes effect.…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Regeneration Dilemmas

    • 1912 Words
    • 8 Pages

    In early 1996, the former Toronto Council approved new Part II Official Plans and Zoning Bylaw amendments to encourage reinvestment and regeneration in King-Spadina (Dill&Bedford, 2002). Mayor Barbara Hall initiated a consultation process that resulted in the elimination of traditional use restrictions and redesignation in this district. There were some outside supporters, including Jane Jacobs, and other famous architects and planners. The King-Spadina area was established as the “Reinvestment Area,” and developers immediately began to take advantage of the innovative planning framework and its novel zoning flexibility (Recursion, 2011). The purpose of the plan was to deregulate the land use, abandon out-of-fashion industrial policy…

    • 1912 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    federalism

    • 1701 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Substantial interference with possessions or with a person who believes that he or she is not free to leave or terminate encounter,…

    • 1701 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Public Property

    • 8415 Words
    • 34 Pages

    Public property is property which is owned collectively by the people as a whole. This is in contrast to private property, owned by a individual person or artificial entities that represent the financial interests of persons, such as corporations.[1] State ownership, also called public ownership, government ownership or state property, are property interests that are vested in the state, rather than an individual or communities.[2]…

    • 8415 Words
    • 34 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    LRWA carmichael analysis

    • 1136 Words
    • 3 Pages

    To determine whether a person has “possession” of a property the court considers four factors: (1) whether the buyer exercises control over the property adverse to the seller; (2) whether the buyer has an exclusive right to control the property; (3) whether the buyer pays for taxes and improvements, and; (4) whether the both parties publically acknowledges the transfer. Dawson v. Tumlinson, 242 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. 1951); Johnson v. Bridgewater, 140 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940, writ dismissed); Sharp v. Stacy, 535 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. 1976); Thorton v. Central Loan Co., 164 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. Civ. App. 1942, writ refused). The court does not consider who occupies the property. Sharp, 535 S.W.2d at 348. The details of the oral agreement are also not considered. See Dawson, 242 S.W.2d 191; Johnson, 140 S.W.2d 282; Thorton, 164 S.W.2d 248; Id. Every factor is considered, but all of them need not be present. Johnson. Presently, Carmichael paid for taxes and improvements, but each other factor is at issue.…

    • 1136 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics