英语论文网

Kelo and the Dery family of Fort Trumbull, New London, Connecticut lived on a stretch of land that neighbored the Pfizer pharmaceutical plant as of 1998. The Dery family, who lived down the street from Miss Kelo, has resided in Fort Trumbull since 1895; The Dery family lived next door to his mother and father, whose parents purchased their house when William McKinley was still president. The city determined that the land of Fort Trumbull could be put to more productive use. The city then handed over its power of eminent domain to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. The claim of “economic development was the justification of handing government assumed power to private entities (Oyez, 2005).

The controversy of Kelo v. City of New London started when New London executed an improvement plan to restore its economy. The plan was implemented in 2000, the plan attempted to improve a 90-acre district on the Thames River in close proximity to Fort Trumbull State Park and Pfizer's international research building, which was set to open in 2001. The Court made a note that New London was a financially strained city and was determined to revive the region as a method of attracting and accumulating innovative industries like the Pfizer facility. Accordingly, it organized and executed a plan under a state law that permitted the city to obtain, develop, and transfer the property to new developers (Oyez, 2005). The law indicated that the city was given the legislative power to authorize the procurement of property through litigation or eminent domain. The plan proposed to expand the area for various uses, but did not intend all areas to be opened to the public.

In the defense of the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) they had successfully acquired 110 parcels of land, but had to initiate procedures to obtain the additional fifteen by eminent domain. Four of the parcels of land were positioned on location of the planned research and development facilities; however, 11 pieces of property were designated for unspecified uses. Fifteen property owners challenged the eminent domain claim, arguing that NLDC violated the Connecticut and United States lawful prohibitions against taking property for public uses without just compensation.

The trial court upheld several of the takings and overturned the others, which resulted in both parties appealing to the Connecticut Supreme Court (Oyez, 2005). The appellant court upheld all of the takings on the foundation that they were essential to the achievement of the city's renewal goals for the economy. The dissenting justices approved the notion that the plan provided a legitimate public purpose, but concluded the takings unconstitutional due to the fact that the city was unsuccessful in demonstrating how the goals would be achieved. Claiming that the City violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, the owners appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (Oyez, 2005).

The issue raised in the Supreme Court was whether or not the New London Development Corporation's plan fulfilled the “public use” conditions or whether it was a simple method to award private individuals. In Kelo v. City of New London, (2005) the Court agreed with the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision that New London's plan provided a acceptable public purpose and the takings satisfied the Fifth Amendment's publi