Kelo v. City of New London,
125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005).

Facts:

The city of New London, CT hired an independent agency to revitalized one of its waterfront properties. This revitalization was intended to create jobs and generate tax revenue for the city. To accomplish this, the independent agency was given authority to acquire the properties by buying them or eminent domain. The independent agency acquired majority of the properties, but some property owners refused to sell. The lower court affirmed both sides, but the Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the city of New London, CT; claiming that it was in line with the Fifth Amendment. The US Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court stating that the city’s actions were justified and there is no way to undermine their decision on what was considered “public use.”

Legal Issue:

Whether the city of New London, CT has the right to consider private property that is not blighted for economical purposes under “public use?”

Legal Holding:

In a five to four decision, the US Supreme Court declared that economical benefits resulting from redevelopment is considered as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment.

Judges:

Majority Judges “Opinion of the Court” Stevens, Author of Opinion The city of New London, CT revitalization plan met the requirements as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment.

“Concurring” Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Kennedy, Author of Opinion The court must decide that the government’s action are just and their intentions are to have a public purpose. Total of Number of Majority Judges (five)

Dissenting Judges

O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas O’Connor and Thomas, Authors of Opinion Under the ruling of the court, all private property is subject to being taken from one private party and given to another in the name of economic development if the government deemed it in the best interest of the public. This ruling will undermine the Fifth Amendment.

Total Number of Dissenting Judges (four)

The job of the New London City Council members, as with any elected city council member, is to provide overall leadership and allocate resources for activities, services, and programs. They must act on behalf of what is best for the city in the short and long term. If a city is hurting economically, then it is the job of the city council to allocate resources to create jobs and generate growth. The New London City Council members believed that they were acting in the best interest of the city.

The developers of new businesses in the Fort Trumbull area were also doing a job. They were hired to develop a waterfront hotel, restaurants, office buildings, marina, etc. Their only responsibility was to fulfill the obligation given to them by the New London City Council.

The petitioners have a right to fight for their property. Some of the petitioners have resided at their property all of their lives. The property rightfully belonged to them. They have held up their obligation by abiding by the city ordinances. Their property was not blight.

The petitioners are the victims in this situation. They owned the land first and was forced to relinquish it to the city for economical purposes. How would the New London City Council members feel if they were the petitioners? How would they handle a situation where they had to leave everything they know behind and relocate to an unknown location? The New London City Council members could have found another location without residents to develop new businesses.

As a Judge, you are obligated to maintain an objective and not a subjective point of view. Your individual moral code should never influence your opinion. With that being said, my interpretation of “public use” would not be for economical gain.

I would put myself in the shoes of both the plaintiff and the defendant and thoroughly listen to the testimony before making a well thought out decision.