I agree with the majority in Kelo that public use, in fact, can mean public purpose and that public purpose can mean private economic development. By definition, public use refers to all that benefits the public. In the Kelo case, the definition and purpose of public use played a crucial in bringing a new way of understanding public spaces (OLR Research Report, 2005). I agree with the majority opinion because if public use implies public purpose, then all public spaces must serve the public purpose. Public areas that do not benefit the public should, therefore, be privatized and used in the development of private economic hubs. Through these hubs, the public would be able to benefit by gaining employment, getting healthcare services, among other benefits. On the contrary, holding a different definition of public use and public purpose could lead to wastage of public spaces within areas that could be more beneficial to society.
O’Connor’s dissenting statement is highly convincing to me. In reading the dissenting opinion, O’Connor states that the ruling and legislature was against the first social compact principles of the US Constitution (Legal Information Institute, 2005). O’Connor stated that taking ownership from one person and giving it to another cannot be termed as justice as it a violation of the Legislative powers. O’Connor also issued his concerns over the possible exploitation of private property due to the court decision to allow the transfer of private land. However, despite supporting O’Connor’s dissenting opinion, I find it difficult to comprehend how he defined public use and private economic development. In essence, O’Connor uses the very same idea that he opposes boosting his claim. He contradicts himself by stating that private property is now vulnerable due to this judgment. By using this statement, O’Connor and the dissenting justices acknowledge that public land is similar to privatized land. Essentially, public land must be used for public purposes and benefits, hence the role of private ownership.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Code of enforcement professionals work with local governments and help them in the evaluation of private and public properties, ensuring adherence to state and local governments’ codes and regulations. As a code enforcement officer, I would issue warnings or codes of violation citations when I determine that the buildings and other codes enforced by state or local government are violated (Weiss et al., 2017). For instance, to ensure public safety, all homeowners must ensure regular maintenance of their houses, including roofing, floors, and wiring systems. During my inspection process, if I notice a violation of such requirements, I would issue a code violation citation to provide a warning to the owners. Another situation would be if I notice someone’s property disrupting normal functioning or peaceful coexistence within a neighbourhood. For instance, if I notice a house disposing sewage waste to other public properties, then I would issue a code of violation citation. Before deciding whether to issue a warning or a code of violation citation, I would first consider the degree of violation.
The Fair Housing Law is crucial in ensuring that people can access housing services without discrimination. Before this law, there was extensive discrimination based on class, color, religion, and social status. However, the law has changed this detrimental trend by demanding equality in the provision of housing services (Snyder, 2018). The law outlines people with various disabilities, colored skin, people from different nationalities, and specific religions, LGBT, and women. If it were not for this law, then it would be difficult for some classes of people to access housing services. For instance, some house owners would deny such services on the basis of sex orientations. They would also use social stereotypes as a basis for denying some groups like the blacks housing services. I think that this law is fair as it ensures equality in housing services, providing all Americans with the right to access such services. The law removes the burden incurred by the less privileged and minority groups in accessing housing facilities.
References
Legal Information Institute (2005). O’Connor, J., dissenting: Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html
OLR Research Report (2005). Kelo v. City of New London. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0560.htm
Snyder, J. D. (2018). How Patent Law Keeps the Hope of Fair Housing Alive for All, Even after Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami. Harv. Latinx L. Rev. , 21 , 107. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/hllr21§ion=8
Weiss, M. E., Wick, R., & Nash, S. (2017). Coverage Considerations in Construction Defect Cases Involving Statutory and Code Violation Claims. Wisconsin Civil Trial Journal , 25. http://www.wdc-online.org/application/files/9216/0590/0561/2020_WDC_Winter_Journal.pdf#page=25
