by Elias E. Guzman
Eminent domain actions are guided by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees that governments shall not take private property “for public use, without just compensation.” It is this notion of “public use” that was examined in the recent Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005). In Kelo, the Court held that a local government body, or its agent, can in fact use eminent domain to take private property for a “private use,” as long as the taking is justified by being part of a larger economic development plan that helps or benefits the community.
Kelo arises out of condemnation proceedings initiated by the development agent of the City of New London (“City”) (which were challenged by certain landowners, including Kelo). The City is located in an area that sits at the junction of the Thames River and the Long Island Sound in southeastern Connecticut. Although the City suffered from decades of decline and low unemployment, the City sought to turn such decline around by developing the Fort Trumbull area, which was comprised of 115 privately owned properties and situated on a peninsula that juts into the Thames River. This area was not blighted; in fact, many of the properties were in great condition. In 1998, Pfizer announced it would build a $300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to Fort Trumbull. Local planners hoped that this move would draw new business to the area and serve as a catalyst to the area’s rejuvenation. City officials, through an already existing private non-profit entity, targeted Fort Trumbull with an integrated development plan, which proposed seven parcels with designations for various uses.
On approximately 90 acres, the development plan intended to generate commerce by constructing a hotel, restaurants, a riverwalk, single family residences, a museum, and office and retail space. The anticipated benefits of the development plan included: the creation of new jobs, generation of tax revenue, creation of leisure and recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park, and in general, build momentum for the revitalization of the downtown area of the City. In January 2000, after satisfying all state and local requirements, the City approved the plan and authorized its development agent to purchase property or acquire property by exercising eminent domain in the City’s name. Susette Kelo, one of nine protesting landowners that owned fifteen properties on Fort Trumbull, did not agree with the development plan and brought sought suit against the City and the legal battles ensued.
At the outset of its reasoning, the Court set forth two polar propositions that are perfectly clear in the law. At one end, a government cannot take the...
