Kelo v. city of New London conn.
The city of London in the implementation of ``economic revitalization plan” sought to acquire 90 acres for development from private owners. The development was geared towards increasing employment as well as generating revenue for the government. The city acquired land from most private owners but 15 owners refused to surrender their lands and the city commenced a suit to claim the said land. The developer was a private entity. The owners of the said lands disputed the acquisition of their land due to lack of reasonable compensation by the city. The Fifth Amendment provides that just compensation should be awarded to individuals whose properties have been confiscated by the government for development purposes.
The trial court ruled in favor of the London city and the private owners and they were unsatisfied and appealed to the appellate court. The appellate court affirmed the previous ruling and they appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Did the acquisition of land by the city for purposes of development by a private developer amount to ``public use” as pet the Fifth Amendment provisions?
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled for the city. The court held that the city had satisfied the requirements that the land was to be used for the well being of the country as a whole and that the benefits were foreseeable thus the act of selling private lands to the private developer was within the meaning provided in the fifth Amendment regarding the ``taking clause”.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court sought to interpret the meaning of the word public broadly. The supreme court stated that despite the fact that private land has been acquired for private development, an aspect that makes it inaccessible to the public, does not qualify the acquisition of the said land not to be for ``public” usage.
The court argued that in Berman v Parker affirmed the congress plan to revive washing D.C. through the acquisition of private lands and transferring them to private developers. An owner of a store that was to be acquired instituted a suit by claiming that it was unconstitutional for the congress to acquire private lands and transfer then to private developers. The court ruled that the transfer was for the economic development of the city thus the acquisition qualified as ``public use” as per the constitution.
The decision was supported by five judges and dissented by four thus making it a win for the city. The concurring judges held that despite the fact that the lands will be beneficial to a private developer rather than the ``general public” should not render the acquisition unconstitutional. The judges were of the opinion that developments by private developers benefit the public indirectly even though the properties are usually not open for public usage.
The dissenting judges argued that the city should only acquire private lands if it will maintain the ownership in addition to converting the said lands for public usage .The judges further argued that the acts by the city violated the ``taking clause” when interpreted plainly because the city sold the land to a private developer. The judges expressed their dissatisfaction with the manner the courts violated the meaning of the ``taking clause” and stated that such interpretations have rendered the clause meaningless.
Conclusion
My view is that despite the fact that a private developer will benefit the public indirectly in addition to boosting the economy should not be used as a basis for acquiring private lands for their developments. The transfer of private lands to private developers in my belief is a strategy to benefit private developers, an act that defies the essence of the formulation of the ``taking clause”.
Work Cited
Kelo v. city of New London conn. Retrieved From
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-r-0560.htm .Assessed on 16th December, 2014.
