The 5th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution gives the government the power to take property from private landowners and put it to some public use, after paying the owner a reasonable price for the land. This process is known as eminent domain. Traditionally, the term public use has been interpreted to mean things like public schools, roads, and hospitals, which are generally available to all members of the public. However, the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut involved the taking of private property for development by private land developers, for mostly private use. The reason for this taking was to improve the property so that it would generate jobs and significantly larger tax revenues to the city. A few of the property owners who did not wish to sell their land to the government began a lawsuit to stop the taking. But, over the objections of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the U. S. Supreme Court decided that the development of land to produce more jobs and greater tax revenues to the city or state is a legitimate public purpose.

Explain why you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Should the government have the power to take privately-owned land and allow private development of that land if doing so will produce more jobs and generate additional tax revenues to the state or local government? What are the potential implications of this policy? Under what circumstances do you think the government should have the power to take privately owned land?