Question

1. In Kelo v. New London, a divided Supreme Court allowed the city of New London to seize a homeowner’s property by eminent domain. A private developer had been buying up derelict waterfront property for a very extensive redevelopment project that would bring hundreds of needed jobs to New London’s depressed economy. The project could not be built without the homeowner’s land and she refused to sell to the developer. New London seized her property by eminent domain then sold the property to the developer.

Do you agree or disagree with the court's decision? what is the status of the property now?

Please include your name on your submission which should be at least 500 words.  

Answer 1

In UK prominent domain refers to the compulsory purchase, which means the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use. However, this power can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized by the legislature to exercise the functions of public character.

As government thinking to boost their economy with some these type of project from the private counterpart. These projects have ample of employment opportunity, which is directed toward the government interest. According to the eminent domain government can interfere in this type of project where government interest is on the top, as the seller denied to selling the property which lead company to the depressed economy. The project cannot be go on board without the seller involvement. In this scenario, it seems project is very good and leads the government to some relief from the depressed economy.

In the historical context of eminent domain, property taken could be used only by the government taking the property in question. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain have been for roads and government buildings and other facilities, public utilities. However, in the mid-20th century, a new application of eminent domain was pioneered, in which the government could take the property and transfer it to a private third party. This was initially done only to "blighted" property, on the principle that such properties had a negative impact upon surrounding property owners, but was later expanded to allow the taking of any private property when the new 3rd party owner could develop the property in such a way as to bring in increased tax revenues to the government.

So here is the case for new type, where 3^rd party involvement along with the government, here 3^rd party plan to developing a project, which can produce the employment in London.

I agree with the Supreme Court decision and this steps towards the economic development of the country. One thing should also be covered in it that the seller will get the profit sharing or the extended amount on selling of the property. This is right in terms of public interest but the seller also gets something more with this project, so that they don’t feel cheated by the government.

Nitin Shrivastava – Research Scholar From Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (U.P), India