Verified Document

Eminent Domain Term Paper

Kelo v. New London and Eminent Domain When the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut in February of 2005, the issue legally speaking was a seemingly straightforward matter of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. What was at stake as a point of Constitutional law was the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, generally referred to as the "takings clause." The actual wording within the Bill of Rights is just twelve words long: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The government has an enumerated constitutional right, therefore, of what is termed eminent domain, and the only legal issue here was one of interpretation of those twelve words. To couch what was at stake in Kelo in such a deliberately bland and legalistic manner, though, utterly understates the extent of public outcry and outrage the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo would occasion when the decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, was handed down four months later. In part, the public outcry was occasioned because Susette Kelo made a particularly sympathetic media story: she refused to yield up her "little pink house" in New London's downtown Fort Trumbull neighborhood to the city's particularly broad interpretation of "public use." At the time of oral arguments on February 22, 2005, Dahlia Lithwick then writing for Slate gave a summary of what constituted "public use" in Kelo:

In the working-class neighborhood of Fort Trumbull, Conn., the local government has some big plans. Not a monorail, but adjacent to and complementing a brand new $300 million research facility for the pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, there would be condos, health clubs, a luxury hotel, shops, and other assorted mega-stuff. Most of the folks in town agreed to sell, but seven families, owning 15 homes, refused. They like their crumbly Victorians. So when the state tried to condemn their property, they sought injunctions. Traditionally, the "public use" requirement in eminent domain cases allowed the local government to condemn property to build railroads, or bridges, or highways. But in a 1954 case, Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court found that "public use" could include condemning blighted neighborhoods to build better ones. Fort Trumbull isn't blighted, but since the Michigan Supreme Court decided its famous Poletown case in 1981 -- razing hundreds of homes to build a GM plant -- many jurisdictions have insisted that increased tax revenues and the prospect of new jobs was "public use" enough to justify nabbing land that subsequently became Costcos, shopping malls, and fancy office buildings. New York used eminent domain to improve Times Square and build the World Trade Center. The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with New London that seizing homes for purposes of private economic development was permissible. The homeowners appealed. (Lithwick 2005).

The Supreme Court's decision was authored by the Nixon appointee John Paul Stevens, who was joined by the court's liberal wing in 2005, Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer, and found in favor of New London's right to claim Susette Kelo's home under eminent domain. Those dissenting were Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and the court's paleoconservative-originalist phalanx of Scalia and Thomas. But the public condemnation of the decision was immediate, as was legislative response on the state level. However, six years after the Kelo decision, it is worth inquiring what effects is seems to have had. This survey will assess various interpretations of what the effects of Kelo have been, and to see if the "fallout," so to speak, has been as radioactive as the initial public response to the decision might have indicated.

The initial public outcry from intellectuals and members of the legal community, upon reading Stevens' decision in 2005, was quickly joined by journalists and members of the public, especially in response to what were seen as sudden reactions by state and local governments to take advantage of what seemed to be unusually broad powers now granted to them by the Supreme Court under the Fifth Amendment. Woodyard and Boggs in their 2009 survey of the public response -- or "outcry," to use the term they use -- to Kelo summarize:

Critics of Kelo were quick to seize upon reported local government actions, which they saw as abusive uses of eminent domain powers. For example, the Institute for Justice contended that the City of Freeport, Texas attempted to condemn waterfront shrimp processing companies in order to develop a marina mere hours after the Supreme Court rendered its judgment....

Parts of this document are hidden

View Full Document
svg-one

Just two days later, the City of Boston also began the process for seizing waterfront properties. Officials from Newark, New Jersey told the press that but for the Kelo decision they would have abandoned plans for a downtown condo and retail project. (441)
It is first necessary to note that the Kelo decision found that economic improvement schemes meant that neighborhoods could be seized for eminent domain even if they did not constitute "blight" under the 1954 Berman ruling, thus granting a much broader power of eminent domain to state and local governments. Therefore the strongest reaction to this could largely be described as libertarian, of both left and right wing varieties. The term is particularly apropos because it was, in fact, a libertarian activist law firm, the "Institute for Justice" led by attorney Scott Bullock, that argued Susette Kelo's case before the Supreme Court. On the fifth anniversary of oral argument in February of 2010, Bullock himself issued a press release to mark the occasion, and more importantly to note that in some sense events had proved his initial dire warnings correct, at least in the specific case of Susette Kelo herself:

This past November (2009)…Pfizer announced it will close its New London research and development headquarters. This marks the end of an eminent domain error. New London created a redevelopment plan that gave land to Pfizer at a nominal cost and provided free environmental cleanup to the site. The plan also called for redevelopment of an area called Fort Trumbull, a working-class neighborhood adjacent to the Pfizer headquarters. It housed approximately 70 to 80 homes, as well as a few small businesses and an abandoned Navy base. The plan called for this area to be replaced by an upscale hotel, office buildings and new housing. This redeveloped area would "complement" the new Pfizer facility, leading to increased taxes and job growth for New London -- or so the city promised. The state agreed to provide $78 million for the project. Pfizer received an 80% tax abatement for 10 years. Keep in mind, when the five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against our clients -- holding that taking property for "economic development" does not violate the U.S. Constitution's Takings Clause -- the justices stressed that there was a plan in place, and that so long as lawmakers who looked to use eminent domain for someone's private gain had a plan, the courts would wash their hands. Now, nearly five years after the redevelopment scheme passed constitutional muster, the plant that was the magnet for the development is closing its doors just as its tax abatements expire. The very land where Susette Kelo's home once stood remains barren -- home to nothing but feral cats, seagulls and weeds. For years, the disastrous Fort Trumbull project will be Exhibit A in demonstrating the folly of government plans that involve corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain for private development. Hopefully, city officials, planners and developers will take the Fort Trumbull experience to heart and pursue revitalization efforts only through voluntary, not coercive, means. Until they do, IJ will stand with property owners nationwide to fight for what is rightfully theirs. (Bullock, 2010)

Bullock's summary is worth quoting at length, because his advocacy of Kelo's case in front of the Supreme Court was, in some sense, a work of activism, and his own assessment represents the generally libertarian interpretation of eminent domain (on both right and left) which was strongest in the "outcry." On the level of the initial drama which captured the attention of the media and the public, then, the fallout could not be worse for supporters of the Kelo decision, when Susette Kelo's house remains a vacant lot in mid-2011, some six years later. And Pfizer's actions bolstered the credibility of those who had claimed that essentially the Court had licensed local governments, on the same model that they offer tax incentives, to basically offer sacrifices of entire working class neighborhoods to appease fickle corporate monoliths who are likely in a globalized economy to pack up and move with absolutely no regard for the communities in which they temporarily base their operations.

However, it is important to note that the initial "outcry" was met with a flurry of legislation on the state level to respond specifically to Kelo by limiting its most extensively broad interpretation by statute. In a summary issued in 2007 by the National Conference of State Legislatures, Morandi breaks down the response into three different sorts of legal provisions. The first were statutes initiating…

Sources used in this document:
References

Bullock, Scott. "The End of an Eminent Domain Error: Pfizer Closes in New London." Institute for Justice (IJ) press release, February 2010. Web, accessed 30 April 2011 at: http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3076&Itemid=165

Gall, Bert. "Post-Kelo America: An Optimist's View." Reason Magazine, 2 May 2007. Online, accessed 30 April 2011 at: http://reason.com/archives/2007/05/02/post-kelo-america-an-optimists

Jacobs, Harvey M. And Bassett, Ellen M. "All Sound, No Fury? The Impact of State-Based Kelo Laws." Planning and Environmental Law 63.2 (February 2011): 3-8. Online, accessed 30 April 2011 at: http://urpl.wisc.edu/people/jacobs/jacobs%20publications/Jacobs%20&%20Bassett%20-%202011%20-%20Kelo%20-%20PEL.pdf

"Lexington." "Kelo: John Paul Stevens' Worst Decision." The Economist, "Lexington's Notebook" (blog). Web, accessed 30 April 2011 at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/04/kelo_john_paul_stevenss_worst_decision
Lithwick, Dahlia. "Condem-nation." Slate, 22 February 2005. Web. Accessed 30 April 2011 at: http://www.slate.com/id/2113868/
Morandi, Larry. "Eminent Domain: Not in My Front Yard." National Conference of State Legislatures, 7 November 2007. Web, accessed 30 April 2011 at: http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/documents/natres/annualmtg2006.pdf
Sullum, Jacob. "Big Blighters: How Developers Use 'Blight'As A Pretext To Get the Land They Covet." Reason Magazine, 9 December 2009. Online, accessed 30 April 2011 at: http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/09/big-blighters
Woodyard, William and Boggs, Glenn. "Public Outcry: Kelo v. City of New London -- A Proposed Solution." Environmental Law 39 (May 2009): 431-450. Online, accessed 30 April 2011 at: http://legacy.lclark.edu/org/envtl/objects/39-2_Woodyard-Boggs.pdf
Cite this Document:
Copy Bibliography Citation

Related Documents

Government and Its Role and
Words: 1157 Length: 4 Document Type: Essay

In this case, individuals are entitled to produce goods and services to meet their human need instead of private profit (Wolff, 2012). Prevention for Power and Privileges under Social Contract: While social contract provides power and privileges to all members of the society, ordinary people are usually prevented from executing the power and privilege that they are entitled to through various ways. Some of these ways include the state's legitimacy claims

Government & Policy the Joyan
Words: 1138 Length: 4 Document Type: Creative Writing

Also, a very liberal strategy like the one that Mexico took after the NAFTA agreements is dangerous to a newly independent state. Extreme liberalization worked well for Mexico because a large and confident Mexico felt like it could benefit greatly from increased trade and labor transfer with the United States, without being pushed around in the agreement, and Canada helped to maintain neutrality. The Joyan Islands, on the other

Government Why Did the Framers
Words: 5873 Length: 18 Document Type: Essay

Republicans construed Obama as suggesting government bailouts for new industries, or at the slightest a more lively federal government function in generating or supporting jobs -- concepts abominations to a lot of conservatives. The Obama campaign countered the idea as political spin that does not replicate the president's feeling or meaning, pointing to full circumstances of the quotation as confirmation (Koch, 2011). Discuss the process of how a Bill becomes a

Government Contracting Process the Federal
Words: 2271 Length: 8 Document Type: Thesis

(Vancketta, 1999) The 'Changes' clause enables the Government "to make unilateral changes to the contract during performance, so long as those changes fall within the contract's scope." The Standard 'Changes' clause utilized in fixes price supply contracts allows the CO to make changes in writing to: 1) the drawings, designs, or specifications when the item is being specifically manufactured for the government; 2) the method of shipment or packing; or 3) the place

Government by the People Federalism
Words: 969 Length: 3 Document Type: Essay

Lobbyists may accost legislators to directly influence their vote on a certain issue. Lobbyists fulfill the important role of providing information for legislators' decision-making, educating and forming public opinion, and even contributing to and testifying to certain legislations. Lobbyists are mostly involved in the electoral process through the use of political action committees (Magleby et al.). Creating the Constitution The original framers designed the Constitution for ordinary people who were not

Government Effects the Government in
Words: 317 Length: 1 Document Type: Term Paper

Higher taxes for example relates to less income for basic needs. In terms of political ideology, it is obvious that the particular ideology of the government would affect the rest of the country. In terms of the United States, for example, the Republican government has a certain set of ideals in terms of issues such as abortion, religious ideology, and so on, that they tend to impose upon the population. In

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

Get Started Now