Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
This was a case concerning a projected that was designed to create at least 1000 jobs, which would in turn lead to an increase in revenue through increased tax collection. Moreover, it was also the intention of the project designers that it would revitalize the economy of the city, more so the waterfront and downtown areas. The project received the consent from the requisite authorities in the city of London to commence in the year 2000. In order to realize this objective, the city of London had bought the property that was required to realize these goals and sought to acquire the rest by use of eminent domain from the property owners who refused to sell their parcels of land to the city. Furthermore, it was not the intention of the city’s authorities to open to the public the concerned land and the private lessees would not be used as common carriers.
Issue
The main issue was whether the use of the land in dispute would qualify as a ‘public use’ as envisioned under the provisions of the Fifth Amendment, the Takings Clause.
Legal analysis/rationale
The Supreme Court had in previous occasions ruled, for example in the Midkiff case, that when a government agency or institution sought such use of property for economic development of the society at large, then that constituted as a valid public use of the property. Nevertheless, in such cases, the courts have to be satisfied that the followings burdens of eminent domain have been met: First, that the acquisition of the disputed property by the city’s authorities was reasonable necessary in order for the city to achieve their desired economic goals. Secondly, the city must prove that the acquisition were “reasonably foreseeable needs”.
Final decision
The court held that the plans by the city to acquire the property were within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of a ‘public use’. In this ruling, the judges interpreted public use to be tantamount to public purpose.
Discussion
Judge O’Connor had a dissenting opinion, which was joined by the other three judges. They argued that they would have increased the threshold for standards of judicial review in a matter that concerned eminent domain for economic purposes. On the other hand, Judge Kennedy J thought that the degree of standard of judicial review should only be heightened in a case where the economic benefits accruing from the acquisition would favor an individual rather the public.
I agree with the court ruling that public interest should supersede private interest. It is significant that available jurisprudence has recognized this need and sought to propagate it. The principle reason for agreeing with the ruling is because it public needs affect the livelihood and the lives of millions of people and the government agencies should be able to utilize the available resources at their disposal to ensure the people are comfortable. However, due care should be taken in order for these bodies not to abuse this discretional powers. Every citizen should have a right to administrative action in case they think their rights have been violated. Moreover, simple and verifiable formulas should be used in ensuring that such developments cause the least amount of distraction to individuals’ lives.
Reference
Schultz, D. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. New York: Infobase Publishing.
