The case involved an economic development plan for New London City which had experienced an economic decline for many years. As a result, there were plans to develop the city and improve its economic development. New London Development Corporation was formed to help in the planning and development of the city. After the authorization of NLDC to plan for the economic development of the city, it was allowed to use over 90 acres of land in Fort Trumbull (Robson, 2012). The plan was to create jobs, increase tax and promote the ability of the public to access public services.
A group of private landowners in Fort Trumbull refused to sell their land to NLDC, which accounted for up to 15 acres part of the required land for development. They filed a suit against the NLDC claiming that eminent domain as in the plan violates the constitution (Rutkow, 2016). They claimed that using their private property for development violates their rights and is unconstitutional. In its ruling, the Supreme Court questioned as to whether the land in question was to be used for public purpose. In writing the decision, Justice Steven stated that “To effectuate this plan, the City has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development" (Peñalver, 2015). The court, therefore, ruled in favor of the NLDC, allowing it to use the land to plan for economic development.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The ruling had significant effects on the lives of the people in the city. Through the development plan, the residents could get jobs, increase tax and generate other revenues which will be helpful. It allowed for increased access to water, development of infrastructure and creation of momentum for the realization of the rest of the city. It provided an opportunity for the residents to experience economic development.
References
Robson, G. J. (2012). Kelo v. City of New London: Its Ironic Impact on Takings Authority. Urb. Law, 44 , 865.
Rutkow, E. (2016). Kelo v. City of New London. Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. , 30 , 261.
Peñalver, E. M. (2015). Property Metaphors and Kelo v. New London: Two Views of the Castle. Fordham L. Rev. , 74 , 2971.
