Justice; Takings Clause
In the 2005 case New London v. Kelo, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled, 5-4, that according to the takings clause, the city's acquisition of private property for economic development qualified as a "public purpose." The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens, determined that the area's economic development served a public purpose because it would increase tax revenue, generate jobs, and enhance the quality of life for New London residents. The Court reasoned that such development would be in the city's and its residents best interests and, therefore, should be permitted under the takings clause. The Court acknowledged that the takings clause lacks a strict definition of what constitutes a "public use" and that the Court must use its discretion to determine what constitutes a "public use."
The Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) found 5-4 in the 2005 case of New London v. Kelo that according to the takings clause, the city's acquisition of private property for economic development qualified as a "public purpose.". The majority view, written by Justice Stevens, found that the area's economic development served a public purpose as it would provide increased tax revenue, create jobs, and improve the general quality of life for the citizens of New London. The Court reasoned that such development would benefit the city and its citizens, and thus it should be allowed under the takings clause. The Court acknowledged that the takings clause does not have a strict definition of what institutes a "public use" and that the Court must use its discretion to determine what qualifies as a "public use."
The Court was correct in its decision because the takings clause does not have a strict definition of "public use." Instead, the Court is open to interpretation to decide what qualifies as a "public use" and what does not. In this case, the Court saw that private property was taken to benefit the public. The increased tax revenue, jobs, and improved quality of life would all be of great benefit to the citizens of New London and thus qualified for communal use (Kelo v. New London, n.d.).
At the same time, however, the Court was wrong in its decision. The Court failed to consider the potential adverse effects of such a taking, such as the displacement of private citizens who had lived and worked on the land for years. Additionally, there is the potential for abuse of such a ruling. If cities can take private property for economic development, they can decide who will benefit from the development and who will not. This gives the city the power to decide who will benefit and who will suffer, which is a power that should not be taken lightly (Kelo v. New London, n.d.).
If I were the 10th justice and had to vote on this case, I would have voted against the city's taking of private property. I believe that the potential adverse effects of such a taking outweigh the potential benefits. I do not think the government should have the power to decide who will benefit and suffer from economic development. I believe that the takings clause should be interpreted more narrowly and that private property should only be taken when there is a clear and direct benefit to the public.
What's Your Reaction?
