Kelo Vs. City of New London, CT

3155 Words13 Pages
Introduction This case analyzes the legal and ethical aspects of the Kelo Vs. City of New London case of 2005. There are three questions at the center of this case: 1) Does the city of New London violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the anticipation the development will improve the city's poor economy? 2) Does the city of New London fulfill the public use stipulation from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause? 3) Does public purpose equal public use? Legal Analysis Model Statement of Facts In 2005, the US Supreme Court decided the case of Kelo Vs. City of New London. At the center of this case was the concept of eminent domain and the tie to the 5th Amendment of the United States constitution. According to eminent domain is “the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use. In some jurisdictions, the state delegates eminent domain power to certain public and private companies. Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the owner of any appropriated land is entitled to reasonable compensation, usually defined as the fair market value of the property”. This case originated as a result of a plan by the city of New London, Connecticut to use its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The use of its eminent domain authority was in support of a city development plan aimed at economic revitalization. The plan was approved in 2000 and the development stretched across a 90-acre plot of waterfront land in the Fort Trumbull area (along the Thames River). The approved plan was projected to create an excess of 1,000 jobs and increase local revenue aimed at revitalizing the city of New London. Included in the development

More about Kelo Vs. City of New London, CT

Open Document