Kelo v. City of New London

Kelo v. City of New London
At least to myself, this was a fascinating case as it has to do with the ability for the governments on any level, be it federal, state or local to seize private property.  Eminent Domain is a legal right under the constitution for a U.S. Government on any level to seize private property so long as they pay the owner for that property. The government will do this when it needs the property for something else that serves the greater good of the community.
Eminent Domain has traditionally been used only when the need arose for something that would serve this greater good of the community. For example, a city may decide that they need to widen a highway or build a bridge because there is too much traffic.  In order to do so they need the property that several homes are already on.  The city will pay the owners of those homes what the homes are worth and pay them for the land in order to build the bridge or widen the highway.  It is also important to note that the people have no say in the matter.  
In 2005 the Supreme Court heard a case concerning Sussette Kelo’s complaint against the city of New London, Connecticut.  Her argument was that while the government has always had the right to eminent domain, that the writers of the constitution created eminent domain only so that the property would be taken to create public constructions.  Kelo argued that eminent domain was never intended for what the city of New London wanted.  New London wanted to take people’s property and sell it to someone else so that they could create shopping malls and condominiums that would be privately owned.The Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain was intended for either case.  
The court decided, much to public outcry, that a government does have the ability to take property from one citizen and give it to another.  The reasoning they gave was that the property could be used to create something that would generate more tax dollars.  A shopping mall creates more jobs and generates more spending and tax dollars than your house does.  Since tax dollars are used by governments to provide for the public the shopping mall is better for the public than your house.
To explain it in another way, if Donald Trump wants to buy your home to create apartment buildings on your land he has the right to do so since his buildings will be taxed more than your home. This is what the Supreme Court decided in 2005.  

Wikipedia Link: Kelo v New London at Wikipedia
New York Times article: States Curbing Right to Seize Private Homes by John M. Broder  

Assignment
I would like detailed comments about this case. Your reflection on this case should focus on what the the framers of the constitution meant when they wrote “eminent domain” into the Constitution. Is the decision reached in the Kelo case what they had in mind? There are many states that would like a Constitutional amendment to limit eminent domain. Is the Kelo case one where the Supreme Court would reverse their decision down the road? What does this make you consider as a future home owner? Did you know that the Kelo case allows the government to force you to sell your property to the owners of a sports team so that a stadium can be built? Try to think about the true impact of this case and comment on it in your blogs.

~ by andrewmolinari on March 3, 2008.