Klo V New London Case Study

1170 Words5 Pages
In this paper I will address the case of Kelo v. New London and how the authors Robert Posner and Ronald Dworkin would have ruled it if they had been the judges presiding over the case. I plan to show that though the approaches taken would differ that they would still arrive at the same majority decision, Posner through “wealth maximization” and Dworkin through utilizing his principles and policies applications. Kelo v. New London Development Corporation has a number of key features that need to be addressed. The issues that this case addressed were the development plan, acquisition of the land, and the court challenge brought by the owners of the 15 condemned parcels. Each of these points play an important role in why the Supreme Court came to the verdict it did, and why the owners of the parcels were upset. The development plan of the city of New London was to implement a plan that would revitalize its economy. The plan was to develop a 90-acre area located on the Thames River and would be near Pfizer’s global research facility, which was scheduled to open soon. The area consisted of residential and commercail properties resting on 115 privately owned parcels of land. The court noted that, “Decades of economic decline led a state agency in 1990 to designate the City a “distressed municipality (Kilo v. New London, 2).” The redevelopment plan was, “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas (1).” It would accomodate new business associated with the Pfizer facility, create leisure and recreational opportunities, and make the city more attractive in general. The city, seeing these benefits adopted a ... ... middle of paper ... ...alize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas, which would indeed result in the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The happiness would result from the revival of a city said to be “distressed municipality” leading to increased income and well-being for visitors, residents, and businesses. While seeking a conclusion, Dworkin would seek weight for the principle at hand. Looking at cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff and Berman v. Parker he would see other judges ruling in favor of the larger “plans” at hand. This would increase the weight of the principle and he would end up ruling in favor of the private developers, agreeing that “public purpose” became synonymous with “public use” as time progressed. Holding that the development plan remains within the boundaries of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    More about Klo V New London Case Study

      Open Document