...Logan Armbruster September 17, 2014 Business 481 Case 3.1 1. Did New London treat Susette Kelo and her neighbors fairly? Assuming that the proposed development would help to revitalize New London, is it just for the city to appropriate private property around Fort Trumbull? a. I believe that New London treated Kelo and her neighbors as fair as they could. The proposed development would hope to attract new development, which would help revitalize the community and bring in tax revenue. I believe it’s just for the city to appropriate private property around Fort Trumbull because of their power of eminent domain. 2. Are towns such as New London and Salina pursuing wise, beneficial, and progressive social policies, or are their actions socially harmful and biased against ordinary working people and small-business owners? a. I believe that New London and Salina are pursuing progressive social policies but their actions are socially harmful to the homeowners of the areas that they are taking over with their eminent domain right. 3. Do you believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government? Explain why or why not. a. I believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government. I feel this way because you are being compensated for your loss of property with either money or land or both. If the area where your home is located is potentially a prime area that could bring in new development and revitalize a community...
Words: 547 - Pages: 3
...have been a couple of cases that raised the questions of when eminent domain should be used. One of the most controversial cases in the history of the United States was the Kelo v New London Supreme Court ruling. In order to generate tax revenue, add jobs, and to prevent bankruptcy, the government’s right to initiate eminent domain for public good is a necessary evil. Eminent domain in definition is “the right or power of public purposes without the owner’s consent on payment of just compensation” (“Eminent Domain History”). Eminent domain has been a part of the United States ever since the constitution was created. Eminent domain is not stated in the constitution. However, it is implied at the end if the Fifth Amendment, " [no person should] be deprived of life, liberty, or property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (U.S. Constitution). Eminent domain is not new to the United States. The first eminent domain case was “in 1879 the Supreme Court, in the case of Boom Co. v. Patterson, (98 U.S. 403) said that eminent domain appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty" (“Draw the Line”). After World War II, eminent domain was used on a regular basis. "In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Berman v Parker that private projects meet the definition if they have a public purpose" (“Eminent Domain History”). Eminent domain is a sad way for a family to lose there home. Eminent domain...
Words: 1214 - Pages: 5
...private property for “public use” if the owner is fairly compensated. It is found in the United States Constitution, 1787, in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It should also be noted that while eminent domain might seem “morally wrong” to the owner of the aforementioned property (Source B), it has been “used to build roads, schools, and utility lines,” all things that are needed and important. It has also been used to build shopping malls, offices, and other projects, all of which could further boost the economic development of a city or area (Source A). Mayor Cain also said that her city “could not survive without a strengthened tax base” and that the city “simply needs more money (Source B).” Neutral observers of the of the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court case stated that state officials are trying so hard to protect homeowners and small business that they are “handcuffing local governments that are trying to revitalize dying cities and fill in blighted areas with projects that produce tax revenues and jobs (Source E).” John D. Echeverria, executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute and an authority on land-use policy, stated that there is a danger that legislators are going to overprotect the homeowners and small businesses to an extent that they destroy a “significant and sometimes painful but essential government power.” Echeverria also said that this could be a recipe for economic deterioration (Source E). This goes to further the...
Words: 526 - Pages: 3
