The 2005 court case of Kelo v. New London disputed the use of eminent domain when the city of New London, Connecticut took many properties away from homeowners to build a large development, which comprised of a research facility, for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, upscale housing, a hotel, office space and other facilities. Once the city of New London got Pfizer’s word on their research facility and how it will bring in hundreds of jobs and thousands in tax dollars to New London, the city could not say no. The area of New London where this new development was going, “was in an area of the city that saw better days and was not highly sought after”1. In the 90’s the city of New London was in financial trouble. But in 1998 Pfizer announced that they were going to build their global research facility in downtown New London adjacent to the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. “This was only going to happen if and when the city of New London was going to remediate the junkyard north of Pfizer’s site, bring the current sewage treatment plant to a State of the Art state, clean up the old abandoned Amtrak railroad maintenance yard and remediate many of the brown fields and hazards that were present on and around the site.”2 This may sound like a lot of work and time for just one development but when “the state gave New London a 70 million dollar grant”3 and Pfizer said they would bring in hundreds of jobs and thousands in tax dollars, New London had to do it to recover from their poor economic state they were in. “To create this development they would have to buy many properties that were on the 90 acre development. Many people sold their properties but, a few did not like Susetto Kelo and Wilhelmina and Charles Dery, who lived in the Fort Trumbu... ... middle of paper ... ...Case." About.com Civil Liberties. Accessed December 17, 2013. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freetradeopenmarkets/p/kelovlondon.htm. Trachtman, Michael G. "Chapter 25 Kelo vs. New London." In The Supremes' Greatest Hits: The 37 Supreme Court Cases That Most Directly Affect Your Life, 121-24. New York, NY: Sterling, 2009. United States of America. International Economic Development Council. Review of Kelo V. New London Court Case On Eminent Domain. By Jeff Finkle. Accessed November 18, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?vid=3&sid=3e197463-a2a1-423c-9271-f37804d01d7e%40sessionmgr198&hid=101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=mih&AN=32Y0878313147. Vile, John R., and Joseph Francis Menez. "Chapter 7." In Essential Supreme Court Decisions: Summaries of Leading Cases in U.S. Constitutional Law, 194-96. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010.
Iceland recognizes the issue of eminent domain, as they have had trouble with this in regards to geothermal deposits. However, they agree with the ECHR regarding rights to fair compensation. Governments should only take property if it will benefit the public as a whole.
Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf (last visited Apr.4, 2014).
"Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26, ET AL. v. Pico, By His Next
al., Appellants v. City of New York et al. Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. 1998. Web. 6 May 2014.
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
"Key Supreme Court Cases: Schenck v. United States - American Bar ..." 2011. 14 Jan. 2014
Property is an owned object, whether that is land or a house or a computer. We own property, it’s our right to protect and decide what we do with that property. We worked hard to own property and we will fight to protect it from both foreign and domestic threats. When someone takes our property, we call it theft, but when the government does it, it’s called Eminent Domain.
5. Harrison, Maureen. Gilbert, Steve. Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court II. La Jolla, California. Copyright 1992. By Excellent Books.
... private property can only be taking for public use. What is in the constitution cannot be change or interpreted differently because you than get the government changing the constitution to fit its benefits. Here Originalist, textualist should have been use to interpret the constituion . The Supreme Court decided on a case that should have been in favor of Kelo because the constitution specifically states what to do in situations like that.
"Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court." Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Abadinsky, Howard. Law and Justice: An Introduction to the American Legal System. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
pp. pp. pp Kay, H. H. (2004, Jan). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Professor of Law.
"Romer v. Evans." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437703853.html