Reference no: EM13890649
KELO V. NEW LONDON
ASSIGNED MATERIALS
1) Text pp. 127-129 (7thed.): The Takings Clause &Kelo v. New London
2) Articles/Commentary re: Kelo and Eminent Domain:
a) Duke Law Voices of American Law; Kelo v. New London; See Trailer at: https://web.law.duke.edu/voices/kelo#
b) The Battle for Your Home, Washington Times, Dana Berliner (Kelo attorney), 8/18/05: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/aug/18/20050818-083900-5195r/
c) Taking Your Home Away, CNN Money, Les Christie, 8/3/05: https://money.cnn.com/2005/07/25/real_estate/investment_prop/eminent_domain_v_deveopment/
d) Why Cities Need Eminent Domain, Hartford Courant, Bill Finch, 8/7/05 (Article on p. 2 -3 below)
e) BB&T Restricts Loans to Developers, Washington Post, Brook A. Masters, 1/26/06: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502022.html
EMINENT DOMAIN ASSIGNMENT
1) Supreme Court Decision.
The Kelo case was a 5-4 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Stevens wrote the Supreme Court's opinion in the case in which he was joined by four other justices (Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer). Four justices (Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor Scalia and Thomas) dissented from the majority opinion. Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas each wrote a dissenting opinion in the Kelo case. A dissenting opinion does not have precedential weight - it reflects the dissenting justices' position in opposition to the majority's decision of the case. Reading both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions can be an extremely useful way to understand the legal principles addressed in the case as well as the arguments on both sides of the issue.
a) Did the Supreme Court hold that the exercise of eminent domain by the City of New London was constitutional? What is the public use according to the majority opinion?Explain.
b) Dissenting Opinion - What position did Justice O'Connor take on the constitutionality of the exercise of eminent domain by the City of New London. Explain.
2) Articles/Commentary - Read/watch the articles/commentary listed above and do any additional research you deem appropriate to answer the following questions:
a) Which articles/commentary support your personal opinion about the Kelo case? Why?
b) Which articles/commentary are contrary to your personal opinion about the Kelo case? Why?
3) The U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of eminent domain for private economic development does not violate the U.S. Constitution but it also commented that the people can choose to limit the government's power of eminent domain within their State. Assume the following Proposition is on the ballot in the next election in your State:
"The government should/ should not be allowed to use eminent domain to acquire property if the purpose of such taking is a transfer to a private developer for private economic development.
What is your opinion - Should the government have this power or not? It's in your hands. Explain your answer.
Why Cities Need Eminent Domain, Bill Finch
August 7, 2005 (Hartford Courant)
Stop the hysteria about eminent domain. The sky is not falling. No one can just come and take your home.
Being ousted from your home by the government is about as likely as winning Powerball.
But no matter how rare it is and no matter how good the reason for it, it is traumatic and must be done with great compassion and understanding. In my experience, it is fair and necessary, especially for older cities struggling to adapt to the new economy. It is a difficult issue about which I have firsthand experience - I use eminent domain for economic development in my job as president of the nonprofit Bridgeport Economic Development Corp.
Hysterical critics with selfish political agendas are wailing that Kelo vs. New London dooms private property. The Kelo case changes nothing. Our government has always been empowered to take private property for public use. The Supreme Court affirmed eminent domain for economic development more than 50 years ago in the 1954 case Berman vs. Parker, which involved taking a department store in a rundown area of Washington, D.C., "merely to develop a better balanced, more attractive community." The Kelo case reaffirmed what local governments have done for more than a half-century.
In 1789, Congress adopted the first 10 amendments to the Constitution - the Bill of Rights. These amendments protect individuals against excessive government power and set in law that the people are the boss of the government. The Fifth Amendment says that the government must pay "just compensation" when taking private property for "public use."
What has changed since 1789 is the definition of "public use." Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could not have imagined the need for interstate highways, airports and large-scale economic development projects.
Our Founders specifically said, by the way, "public use," not "public ownership." Shrill cries of protest over private ownership of economic development projects simply make no sense. Are critics saying that needed housing for the elderly, hospitals or parking garages should be owned exclusively by the government? Would they discourage private investment in the public good? Sounds like Soviet Russia to me.
In limited circumstances, government can take a property for fair market value - but only for the greater good and after long study, multiple public hearings and public approvals by local elected officials. Fair market value is determined by appraisals and ultimately by a judge if agreement cannot be reached.
The lever of eminent domain is used when property owners refuse to sell at a fair price and further negotiations are futile. After a community has worked so hard to adopt redevelopment plans, is it right for a couple of property owners to hold out and extort the public?
Cities do make reasonable efforts to avoid displacing residents. At the Bridgeport Economic Development Corp., we have gone to great pains to accommodate those affected. We have actually moved homes to new lots and made new porches, driveways and utility connections at the government's cost.
Homeowners and renters I have worked with are better off after they relocate. They are moved to better housing and have improved finances. Did you know that renters who are relocated receive a 42-month rental subsidy to help them? Who else gets the government to pay a substantial portion of rent for 31/2 years? Renters can use relocation funds to purchase homes.
Two families that the Bridgeport Economic Development Corp. relocated from a single-room occupancy flop-house bought houses with our help. Not only have I had people thank me for getting them to better homes, one gentleman called in tears to thank my staff for moving him out of a troubled setting and into an apartment with nice neighbors and trees and birds outside his window.
Eminent domain is crucial to Connecticut cities. How will they expand businesses and attract new ones if they have no land? Where would Hartford's Adriaen's Landing or Stamford's redeveloped downtown be without eminent domain? People's Bank, to its credit, decided to stay in Bridgeport. In each of these cases, local communities assembled land to rebuild and determine their futures. Imagine Bridgeport without People's or Stamford without UBS.
In Bridgeport, eminent domain created nearly 1 million square feet of buildings that pay $1.5 million in new taxes. Another 4.5 million square feet in progress will pay, by conservative estimates, between $15 million and $25 million in new taxes. Leveraging private money to create thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in property tax revenue - sounds like America to me.
Proposals are being floated to restrict eminent domain. Incredibly, some people suggest that eminent domain be used only for government projects such as schools. Cities would be limited to taking land off the tax rolls for tax-free development, thereby increasing property tax burdens on the remaining taxpayers. Is that what we want?
If we want our cities to develop, create jobs, stabilize property taxes and serve their regions as cultural and transportation hubs, they must continue the judicious use of eminent domain.
Bill Finch is a Democratic state senator from Bridgeport and president of the Bridgeport Economic Development Corp.
Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant