1. How does the Court define “public use”?
2. Would the case have been decided differently if the project built only a large industrial park? Why or why not?
3. In dissenting opinions, members of the Court argued that this decision makes all private property vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner (against established principles the Court mentioned earlier) so long as the property is upgraded in some way. Moreover, they argued that this decision is advantageous to large corporations or individuals with political power or connections, while those with few resources are disadvantaged. Do you agree? Why or why not?
The city of New London devised an economic development plan that was projected to create more than 1,000 jobs and increase tax and other revenue. The plan called for a waterfront conference hotel; a marina; and various retail, commercial, and residential properties. The city’s development authority designated a large area composed of adjacent parcels of real estate to be condemned in order to redevelop the property consistent with the redevelopment plan. The city’s agent purchased some of the property from willing sellers and gave notice that the city would institute condemnation proceedings via the power of eminent domain to acquire the remaining property from unwilling owners. The city purchased all but nine parcels of real estate and brought condemnations against nine property owners including Kelo, the named plaintiff. Although the city conceded that the condemned properties were not part of the blighted areas (in fact some had recently been renovated), they were condemned simply because of their loca-tion in the proposed development area. The lower courts’ decisions were mixed, and the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case on appeal to decide the question of whether the city’s plan qualified as a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Court ruled in favor of the city and articulated guideposts for appropriate use of the Takings Clause. The Court affirmed the principle that the government is not permitted to take one party’s private property for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party and acknowledged that the city would not be able to take the property if the city planned on bestowing it to a private development company or individual or if any benefits from the plan would be realized only by private individuals. However, the city’s development plan did not contemplate any direct bestowment of property rights upon private individuals or companies. Moreover, even though some of the uses would be private in nature, the Court ruled that the standard to be used is the broader interpretation of the property being used for a public purpose.The Court found that the overall elimination of blight is a legitimate public purpose and held that the city’s plan was a valid exercise of the city’s eminent domain power.
“[T]his ‘Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public.’ Indeed, while many state courts . . . endorsed ‘use by the public’ as the proper definition of public use that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the ‘use by the public’ test difficult to administer . . . , but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society. Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the end of the 19th Century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as ‘public purpose.’ . . . Without exception, our cases have defined [this] concept broadly, reflecting our long-standing policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field. . . . Given the comprehensive character of the plan [and] the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption . . . [it] unquestionably serves a public purpose.”
