Kelo Pros And Cons

This week’s assignment was to write an essay discussing the pros and cons of the Kelo decision as it pertains to local economic development. The city of New London, Connecticut, in 2000, agreed on a development plan that was proposed to increase taxes, jobs and invigorate a troubled city that had fallen on hard economic times. When the city heard that Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company had interest in opening a research facility on the outer limits of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, they then set out and began deliberating on redevelopment plans for the neighborhood to promote new economic activities for the area. Included in the development plan was a resort hotel and conference center, new residences, retail space and even a state park. The

The Court ruling did not change the law or create a new law as it is the same language the Court had always used. However, it did cast light on a sensitive subject showcasing the practices of government taking property from its citizens which many view as un-American. The Supreme Court opinion included a statement that it must show how it is in the public purpose not just for economic benefits. In the opinions of this case, it was stated that the development, besides having been an economic purpose, also created a number of generally accepted public uses such as a pedestrian riverwalk, U.S. Coast Guard museum, parking facility for the museum and a renovated marina. This ruling did strengthen that courts have to investigate whether the use of eminent domain is being considered after research, exercises, and planning by the government. Still, these limits seem very small when considering eminent domain. It appears to encourage cities to take first, then find developers later. As stated by Christensen, “… eminent domain is the power to do just that: take private property and transfer it to another for public use. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment was meant to recognize this power and to identify restrictions on its exercise for the protection of private property rights” (p. 1674). With this case ruling, it encourages

Such power could allow cities to favor special interest groups or large corporations. It could be said, the Supreme Court’s decision concludes that there are no restraints a city must consider when taking for economic development and this creates a reasonable potential for abuse. Cities can claim that without eminent domain they cannot accomplish improvements or worthwhile projects within their communities. Many areas in which eminent domain is used are in low income neighborhoods. It is tremendously difficult for individuals in these areas to pay legal fees to fight cities from condemning their properties. Uprooting families, elderly and destroying small businesses is not a means for economic