Question

CASE 3.1 Eminent Domain SUSETTE KELO'S NONDESCRIPT, PINK CLAPBOARD Kil'I, MINK 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." 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 com- pensation" 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 com- munity 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 hous- ing 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 built a $350 million research center along the river below historic Fort Trumbull. Since then, city and state governments have created a park around the fort, cleaned up the Naw's old asbestos-laden site, and opened the riverfront to public access. Now the city wants to build a hotel office buildings, and new homes to fill the riverfront blocks around Fort Trumbull. And it's not talking about new homes for people like Susette Kelo. "We need to get housing at the upper end, for people like the Pfizer employees,' says Ed O'Connell, the lawyer for the New London Development Corporation, which is in charge of the city's redevelopment efforts. They are the professionals, they are the ones with the expertise and the leadership qualities to remake the city--the young urban professionals who wil invest in New London, put their kids in school, and think of this as a place to stay for 20 or 30 years. And housing developers want open space to work with; they don't want to build around a few old properties like Ms. Kelo's and that of her neighbors, Wilhelmina and Charles Dery. Age 87 and 85, respectively, they live in the house Wilhelmina was born in. The city is willing to pay a fair price for their home, but it's not an issue of money. "We get this all the time," says their son Matt. "How much did they offer? What will it take?' My parents don't want to wake up rich tomorrow. They just want to wake up in their own home." Unfortunately for the Derys, in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the city's condemnation rights. In a close, 5-to-4 deci- sion, it ruled that compulsory purchase to foster economic development falls under public use" and is thus constitutionally permissible. "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Intended to increase jobs and tax revenues, New London's plan unquestionably serves a public purpose." In her dissenting opinion, however, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor objected: "Under the banner of economic devel- opment, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be

Answer 1

Yes, I feel that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government. I feel this way because you are being compensated for your loss of property with either money or land or both. if the area where your home is located potentially a prime area that could bring new development and revitalize a community, I think that is only fair that you are relocated for the sake of the community.