Question

1 Approved Answer

Posted on Mar 07, 2024

The Fifth Amendment requires just compensation by the government whenever property is taken for public use. The authority by the government to take property for

The Fifth Amendment requires just compensation by the government whenever property is taken for public use. The authority by the government to take property for public use is known as eminent domain. One of the more infamous eminent domain cases took place in Connecticut, where the City of New London sought to use eminent domain to take private property to develop 90 acres that would be used in support of a proposed Pfizer research facility.

While the city of New London claimed the taking of private property satisfied the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement, the petitioners argued the taking of property for private economic purposes did not qualify as public use. The Supreme Court heard the case in 2005 and held that the taking of private property from one private owner to another private owner for the purpose of economic development satisfies the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement.

Sadly, 5 years after the Court's ruling, Pfizer would back out of its plans to build a research facility, and the property remains vacant and unused.

Answer the following questions:

Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London? Why or why not?
In your opinion, does the taking of private property for the purpose of economic development satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment? Why?
Research an instance in which eminent domain was used to take private property. Discuss the facts of the case and whether you believe it satisfies the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

Step: 1

Do you agree with the Supreme Courts decision in Kelo v New London Why or why not The decision in Kelo v New London is a contentious one While I understand the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Courts ruling which emphasized deference to local governments judgments on what constitutes public use I personally disagree with the decision Allowing the government to take private property for economic development purposes sets a dangerous precedent that undermines property rights and can potentially lead to abuse by powerful private interests in collusion with government entities The decision effectively expanded the scope of eminent domain beyond its original intent of facilitating public infrastructure projects and poses a threat to individuals rights to their property In your opinion does the taking of private property for the purpose of economic development satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment Why I do not believe that taking private property for economic development purposes inherently satisfies the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment While economic development can certainly benefit the public by creating jobs stimulating economic growth and enhancing communities it should not come at the expense of individuals property rights unless there is a clear and compelling public necessity The Fifth Amendments public use requirement should be interpreted narrowly to prevent the abuse of eminent domain for private gain under the guise of public benefit Research an instance in which eminent domain was used to take private property Discuss the facts of the case and whether you believe it satisfies the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment One notable instance of eminent domain being used to take private property occurred in the case of Poletown Neighborhood Council v City of Detroit 1981 In this case the City of Detroit used eminent domain to acquire and demolish a predominantly residential neighborhood known as Poletown to make way for a General Motors GM manufacturing plant The city argued that the economic revitalization and job creation associated with the GM plant constituted a public use sufficient to justify the taking of private property However many residents and community advocates contested the decision arguing that displacing thousands of people from their homes and destroying a closeknit community for the benefit of a private corporation did not meet the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment Ultimately the Michigan Supreme Court ... blur-text-image