SUSETTE KELO’S NONDESCRIPT, PINK Clapboard house sits above the Thames River in the Fort Trumbull area of New London, Connecticut. It’s surrounded by vacant lots, where neighbors once lived. One by one, these neighbors have left, and their homes have been razed. Their property has been taken over by the City of New London, which has used its power of eminent domain to clear the land where dozens of homes once stood in order to prepare the way for new development.78 Eminent domain is the ancient right of government to take property from an individual without consent for the common good—for example, to build a highway, an airport, a dam, or a hospital. The U.S. Constitution recognizes that right, permitting private property to be taken for “public use”

as long as “just compensation” is paid. In this case, however, New London is taking land from one private party and giving it to another. By tearing down Susette Kelo’s old neighborhood, the city hopes to attract new development, which in turn will help revitalize the community and bring in more tax revenue. “This isn’t for the public good,” says Kelo, a nurse who works three jobs. “The public good is a firehouse or a school, not a hotel and a sports club.”

Connecticut officially designates New London a blighted area. When the Navy moved its Undersea Warfare Center away from New London, taking 1,400 jobs with it, the city’s already high rate of unemployment only got worse.

Much of its housing stock is old and second-rate. The Fort Trumbull area, in particular, is—or was, anyway—a rather gritty neighborhood, where earlier generations of immigrants struggled to get a start. But New London saw a chance to turn things around when the pharmaceutical company Pfizer.....

Discussion Questions 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?
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?
3. Do you believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government? Explain why or why not.
4. “If ‘just compensation’ is paid, then by definition those who lose their property cannot claim that they have been treated unjustly.” Assess this argument.
Can compensation be just even if one of the parties is unwilling to accept it?
5. Is it fair to the community if an individual refuses payment and blocks a socially useful project?
Putting legal issues aside, are there situations in which it would be morally permissible for government to seize private property for the public good with less than full compensation or even with no compensation at all?
6. Assess the concept of eminent domain, in general, and the plight of Susette Kelo and her neighbors, in particular, from the point of view of the different theories of justice discussed in this chapter. Is it possible to square the government’s exercise of eminent domain with a libertarian approach to justice?