Philosophy

In the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al, the defendant had a plan to rejuvenate the already ailing economy through an integrated development plan which was to be implemented through a private developer. In the process, property which had been earmarked for the project was purchased from the willing sellers while for the unwilling sellers their property was acquired by the state through the power of eminent domain to seize private property and sell it to private developers. This prompted Kelo Susette and others to sue the city of New London in state court basing their argument that the action was in violation of the Fifth Amendments taking clause (Findlaw.com, 2010). The clause provided that no private property would be taken for public use without compensation. Kelo et al argued that the sale of their property to private developers is not for public use.

     Contrary to what Kelo had wished for, the court held that the disposition of the private property qualifies as a public use as provided in the takings clause. I do agree with the decision delivered by Stevens J. because the land was being availed for the sole purpose of the public. The economic development plan was not meant to benefit a specific group of identifiable individuals rather it would benefit the general public in terms of creating more jobs, increasing the revenue base as well as creating more recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park which would generally benefit the public (Findlaw.com, 2010). I feel that the land takings from the private owners was justified and should be given deference. Also, going by the opinion in a similar case of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) and Berman v. Parker (1954) the land takings is valid under both the Federal and State Constitutions.

    However, dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice OConnor et al. They were of the opinion that any law that takes the property of one and transfers it to another is against reason and justice and no person should entrust Legislature with such powers. I feel that the dissenting opinion is wanting due to the fact that it does not highlight the basis under which property can be taken from one party to another. Though the fifth amendment to the takings clause make private property vulnerable it eliminates ownership of any undeveloped property because such will be made available to private developers who will use it for the public good.

In the dissent opinion, it is highlighted that not private property will be taken for public use without just compensation. This is another area that I am not in agreement with. London City was willing to compensate all the sellers who were willing to sell their property to the private development agent but Kelo et al resisted this, prompting the use the eminent domain by the government.

Justice Thomas also issued a dissenting opinion arguing that The London City had replaced the public use clause with a public purpose clause which I feel was the only prudent way of dealing with the increased unemployment levels and the need to increase tax and other revenues. The dissenting opinion also argued that the property takings by the government would fall disproportionately on poor communities but I beg to differ because most of the undeveloped property was in the hands of a few rich people who had already accumulated their wealth (Findlaw.com, 2010). By involving the economic development agent, the benefits would trickle down to the economically disadvantaged within the society.