Introduction
Kelo vs. New London was one of the several land ownership cases decided by the United States of America Supreme Court. This case involved the transfer of land from one private owner to the other to develop the economy. The point is well captured in chapter 545 under section 469 of the 2005 U.S. Constitution (Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)). Five judges against four judges of the Supreme Court voted to emphasize the public benefits that the community enjoys from economic developments. This made it possible to transfer the land and create redevelopment plans per the U.S. Constitution. The case emerged amid condemnation by New London, Connecticut, real property owned privately (Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)).
After the court’s decision that allowed the land to be used for the anticipated reasons, the city of New London went ahead to permit the developer to proceed with its initial plans of redeveloping. However, the developer could not access the finances for redeveloping the land, which led to the project’s abandonment (Zhou 15). This paper discusses the case Kelo vs. New London and argues that ruling in favor of New London was the more logical, beneficial, and correct decision in lieu of circumstances.
Main body
The situation rose immediately after New London had begun its development plan of revitalizing its economy. The program sought to develop a privately owned 90-acre land along River Thames near Fort Trumbull State Park after its adoption in early 2000 (Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)). The 90-acre land encompasses the closed U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Centre and residential properties located on the 115 confidentially owned pieces of land (Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)). Before the arrival of the decision, the court had noticed that New London was straining economically, forming part of the decision-making process in favor of the redevelopment plan (Zhou 15). The goal was to redevelop the land to accommodate various avenues of businesses related to the Pfizer facility and create leisure and entertaining facilities to create opportunities for pumping more income into the country.
Under the interpretation of the ruling, the public’s decision to allow New London to redevelop privately owned land was constitutional because the public was permitted to use the condemned property literally. (Zhou 15). In keeping the country’s redevelopment plan, the court realized it prohibited its shallow and narrow explanation of public use. As a result, no approach is used to distinguish economic growth from the rest of general governmental purposes. The ruling against New London with the public’s best interests would be violated if the court ruled in favor of an individual.
The United States supreme court works as a mediator between the constitution and the people of the country. Clause five of the United States Constitution permits the redevelopment of private lands for the sake of economic revitalization (Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)). Therefore, a case presented before the Supreme Court should be ruled for the party supporting economic development and public interest. If I were the judge in Kelo v. New London, I would find New London. The New London argument was to make the piece of land used for the growth of the economy, which is a plan for the good of all people. The aforementioned fifth clause of the constitution allows for the redevelopment of private land for the sake of revitalization. In the case of New London, the project has had the capacity to alleviate poverty, which is one of the primary interests of any city or state. Using the land in a way that will aid the public brings about positive change in the local community, an improvement that should have been prioritized.
Underdeveloped private and public lands make the country sink into poverty. Due to the economic distress witnessed at that time, as a judge, I would favor the team that supports economic revival. The supreme court made a judgment with this consideration that the country was economically distressed (Zhou 17). At the same time, some private owners possessed fast lands that were the epicenter of the country’s economic growth and decided to allow the government to grow economically for the sake of the people. Besides, the court served the redevelopment plan for the people’s best interests and not for the specific benefit of individuals. As a judge, in this case, you need to understand that you are serving the people; public interest should therefore be the leading factor in your final decision.
After undergoing the case, one can easily conclude that since economic development profits both private parties and produce supplementary public gains, it does not necessarily render them illegitimate. Thus, the court discovered that public policies benefit personal interests in most cases, and sometimes the interests serve a better function than even a government agency. According to Justice Kennedy, courts should examine the economic development takings more vividly than any other provided takings (Zhou 17). The process will help discover whether the takings favor a private party rather than giving a public benefit.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the decision of the court was based on several challenges. It was in the process of either upholding the law or working for the public’s best interests. For instance, in Court Challenges, the owners of the fifteen parcels went ahead to change the takings in the state court, claiming that Nonprofit New London Development Corporation violated the U.S. constitution bans against acquiring the property for public interests without due compensation.
After the plan had undergone a 7-day trial, the Supreme Court upheld some of the takings and did away with others for the public’s best interests. This decision compelled both parties of the case to appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. The court had considered all takings necessary for the development of the country. After several considerations of the constitutional takings, the Supreme Court ruled favoring the country’s financial results. The court, in its decision, found out that the transfer of the land plan was for the good of the people. The process would serve a public purpose, and therefore the program was not for a specific group of people but the public.
Work Cited
Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Justia Law. (n.d.). Web.
Zhou, Xinxou. “Lessons to Be Learned: The Abuse of Eminent Domain Power for Economic Development in Comparative Perspective.” Penn Journal of Philosophy, Politics & Economics, vol. 15, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-17.