In Case 1.1 Kelo vs. City of New London, we read how Kelso and several of her ne
ID: 343669 • Letter: I
Question
In Case 1.1 Kelo vs. City of New London, we read how Kelso and several of her neighbors resided in a suburb condemned by the city for a large urban development project. The area was described as blighted and in need of revitalization although Kelo's house was well maintained. The city applied condemnation laws used for public needs. She disputed that her property was unlawfully taken for private development. Review the ruling of judge Stephens and the dissent of Judge oConner and discuss the following 1. What laws are central to this issue? 2. What are the important facts in the case and how does the law apply? 3. You be the judge and give a conclusion-what was the correct decision and resolution in this dispute?Explanation / Answer
The rule of law according to the court says that such economic development qualified as a valid public use under both the Federal and State Constitutions if and only if the takings of the particular properties at issue were reasonably necessary to achieve the City’s intended public use were for reasonably foreseeable needs. The central issue was whether it qualifies for public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The facts are that the city of New London approved a development plan o create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city. It seeks to acquire the property from unwilling owners and it did not plan to open the condemned land to general public nor to private lessees. If I was the judge I must have looked at the cost benefit of such decision. Whether the plan is more important and it result in cities overall economic benefits derived from the development.