If you were on the Supreme Court, would you have decided this case in favor of the City of New London, or in favor Kelo and the other petitioners?
Academic Writing
Iconic One Theme | Powered by Wordpress
If you were on the Supreme Court, would you have decided this case in favor of the City of New London, or in favor Kelo and the other petitioners?
Had I been presented with the same argument and information, I would have ruled in favor of New London and upheld the Supreme Court’s decision. As was made clear at the end of the argument, the question was whether or not it could be categorized as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. With the little I know about the Fifth Amendment and eminent domain, I agree that there is a legitimate argument for the fact that commercial growth will enhance the economy and the community. The other court cases seem to deviate farther from the definition of “public use” than a park, marina, and retail center. The economy needs a boost, even if it means that some people will have to give up their property for fair compensation. It is heartbreaking when people have to leave their homes and give up something that they have worked so hard for, but in this case it will greatly improve their community. The Supreme Court needed to rule on the “public use” aspect, and I believe that New London was correct in this situation.
If I were a justice on the Supreme Court, I would have ruled in favor of the City of New London. While Kelo and the other petitioners make valid points that their homes should not be taken for uses they would not consider public, they are but a small portion of the land to be taken and used. The City is in distress and needs development to help boost the economics and life of the City, and the developmental plans for the property will do just that. The petitioners are but a small few who would not benefit right away from the use of eminent domain, however, when looking at the big picture, they are but a few ants in the colony. Overall, many will benefit from the boosting of the City, and with time the petitioners might even enjoy the new development. When a City is in distress and needs a revamping, some will have to sacrifice. The petitioners are the sacrifice for the whole.
If I were on the Supreme Court for this case, I would have ruled in favor of the City of New London. The reasoning behind this is simple, if the land taken benefits the community as a whole then the government should be allowed to develop on the taken land. Kelo and the other petitioners made several good points on the case, but the result of developing buildings and parks on their land far outweighs the loss of their land. If a portion of a city is run down and the local government wants to demolish what is on that sector and rebuild then they have the right to do so.
Agreeing with the above comments, I believe that the Supreme Court’s ruling was just. The City of New London needed a rebuilding, and the proposed plan was to benefit all. Maybe the petitioners could look into the route of getting their homes on the Historic Registry…I don’t know much about this process, but it seems to save many old homes, which the homes of the petitioners are. Otherwise, the city needs to grow. It needs a new development, and living in the past is only benefiting a few.
I’m torn on the issue, I sympathize with the struggling city and recognize the potential economic benefits, but coming from Myrtle Beach where development is rampant, I’ve seen firsthand what it’s like for families to lose their property for public use, the most recent road widening project took the entire front yard off of hundreds of houses along the road, leaving the families with little distance between their front doors and the sidewalk. It’s a very disheartening thing to see people experience, so my agreement with the supreme court’s decision is reluctant at best. In my hometown having a wide road made life easier for everyone in the area, so like in this court case, i believe that if economic stimulus is what’s needed to better the lives of everyone in New London, I believe that it’s a necessary evil, and since it’s ruled to be public use, it’s a constitutional evil as well.
Likewise, I am torn on this issue. While I believe that the ruling in favor of the City of New London was well within the constructs of the Constitution, it is tough to make this decision without feeling for the people who will lose their homes. I believe that the Supreme Court made a valid decision because the use of the land will, in fact, benefit the entire community economically, and the plan for the land that is to be seized will be used in a public capacity. However, there should be a certain point to which enough is enough. Overdevelopment of land can lead to overly-widespread urbanization, in my opinion. Coming from an area where something is always being built–a new home development or another grocery store–it is nice to see areas that are left alone, giving the community a little bit of room to breath.
If I was on the Supreme Court, I would rule in favor of the City of New London because they didn’t do anything illegal. The plan was supposed to benefit the city by providing more jobs, high tax revenues, and to revitalize the economy, so New London obeyed the state’s municipal development statute to promote public use and interest. By compensated the owners through eminent domain for the economic development of the land, it complied to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The City of New London presented a case to enhance and eventually elevate the economy. If I were on the Supreme Court, I would have been in favor of New London. While the use of eminent domain may seem harsh and irrational to some, it was completely necessary in this particular case. The economy was plummeting, and a result of this was the resident’s inability to provide for themselves and their family. The residents believed through that eminent domain the government was only thinking of itself, but by bringing in more tourism, every resident will feel the positive effects in their bank accounts. The residents needed to stop thinking of themselves and start thinking of the community as a whole.
Our founding fathers established America under the premise that all men shall have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These words became the mantra of our nation long before the 5th amendment came into existence. The founding fathers broke free from the tyranny of England because they believed that government exists to protect these rights, not to infringe upon them. If indeed, our nation is founded upon the notion that government exists to serve and protect these inalienable rights, then the government must return the land to the petitioners. Taking land for “public use” violates the liberty and pursuit of happiness of the citizens involved. The citizens involved are given the right to liberty; they have the right to decide whether or not they would like to sell their land or keep it. Secondly, the citizens involved have the right to the pursuit of happiness, and their pursuit of happiness involves owning and maintaining a piece of property that they legally own. Therefore, if the government takes the land from the petitioners, it is in clear violation of the tenets of our nation. Although language exists in the constitution that allows for a certain interpretation which would put the law on the side of New London, this issue extends far beyond the letter of the law. This issue is about principle; Our nation was founded upon the principle that government exists to serve and protect our inalienable rights. By taking land from citizens, the government does not protect those rights but clearly infringes upon them.
If I was on the Supreme Court, I would have decided this case in favor of the City of New London. The petitioners did have a point of the new development plan violating their “privacy,” but ultimately this “violation” only affects a small portion of the community. The NLDC’s plan to revitalize the area and boost the economy would benefit a much larger population. Its intentions of recreational, commercial, and residential uses prove that the land will not go to waste with its many functions. Promoting economic development serves as an important duty to be tended to, so this development that would increase job opportunities and tax revenue would aid the entire City. In order to revitalize the City, these actions of the Supreme Court are necessary, but unfortunately some (such as the petitioners) will have to suffer along the way. In short, the potential advantages of this new development plan far outweigh the disadvantages and losses that the petitioners are upset about.
If I were on the Supreme Court, I would have decided this case in favor of the City of New London. The town was in a very bad place due to shrinking population and high unemployment rates that just kept rising. If nothing were done about this, the entire city would’ve fallen apart in the near future. While it is sad that to save many you have to inconvenience a few, the few is less important than the many. The city needed to take that land so that they could build developments to benefit the overall economy of the city. The only disagreement I have with how the case was handled is that it mentioned that the home owners were only being compensated for their homes’ worth; I think they should receive additional compensation for inconveniences and other damages.
This prompt and article is a prime example of my moral values conflicting with what I believe is the right thing to do in realistic terms. If I were a Supreme Court judge, I would have voted to uphold the constitutional amendment’s wording, which indeed favors the City of New London. Personally, I believe that the “public use” term is a bit of a stretch from one perspective, the perspective of the homeowners. However, it can still be linked to overall public use and gain because new jobs will be created in the hopes of revitalizing the city. It is unfortunate for a few individuals whom are involved, but the majority will benefit and the law is sustained.
Whenever I see an eminent domain case, I initially think of how sad it is for these people to lose their homes. The fact that the government has the power to take peoples private domiciles is a little frightening. However, if I am fairly judging whether they are taking it for “public use” and the betterment of the community, I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. I wouldn’t necessarily consider the land they are taking being for public use; more community betterment. The city wanted the Pfizer plant to go through so that they could help to stimulate the economy, revitalize the area, and create jobs. People are arguing that the land use is for private industry. I agree; but, the private industry is going to have good effects on the economy which is why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did.
Had I been a Justice on this case I would have ruled in favor of the petitioners. While the land in question was part of a plan designed to benefit the community as a whole, I do not believe that the government should have the authority to strip owners of their privately owned land, even if it is for “public use” It is well within the rights of these petitioners to refuse to give up their properties to the invading entities. It is the government’s job to protect the individual rights of the people it serves, by forcing them to give up their private property for the “good of the community as a whole” it is clearly not upholding its responsibility to the american people. Although the plan may have brought a great many benefits to the community as a whole it is not worth sacrificing an individuals right to their property and it is certainly not the only plan that could fix the economy of the area. Negotiations could be made with the petitioners to find a solution that works for everyone without stripping anyone of their freedoms.
I agree with the Court’s ruling. I believe that it is in the publics best interest for the land to be used for more commercial purposes. With an influx in business and recreational sites, there will be an increase in population. This will provide the town with a more stable economy, something that has been needed there for years it seems. The revitalization of the community will enhance economic growth and provide a tax system that will continue to support the city. The citizens that are forced to move need to realize that everyone will benefit from their actions – it is in the best interest for the city for the land to be used in a more economical stimulating manner.
If I were the Justice of the Supreme Court on the same case, I would have upheld the decision of the Supreme court and ruled in favor over the city of New London. It was clearly brought out in the evidence that the land and houses taken away from the people would be beneficial towards building up the town after it had been damaged economically. I understand that giving up something that belonged to those people will cause distress, but in this instance it was a thoroughly explained move on the side of the city. However I do not agree with the fact that these people who lost their houses, their homes, were given nothing else but compensation, and I believe that here the city made a mistake.
Historically arguing, after the United States won their independence from the British Parliament and monarchy that had acted like tyrants, the Framers of the United States Constitution did not trust large, centralized governments. As mentioned above our founding fathers were trying to escape this exact scenario, where the government can exert its power over smaller parties such as these petitioners. Yes, the Fifth Amendment does state that the government must provide compensation for taking someone’s land for public use, but it does not state that the landowners must accept the compensation, and I feel that it would violate our rights as citizens in this country to force these nine petitioners out of their homes. I disagree with the idea of bending the rules and “technically” using the private land for “public betterment”. As mentioned in this article, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take property A and sell it to B for the purpose of private use. Even though the new private owner will use the land for “community betterment” that will benefit the whole town, these people cannot be forced out of their homes without infringing their rights.Out of the 115 privately owned homes in Fort Trumbell, there are nine petitioners. If 92% of the other homeowners have taken the compensation and moved out of their homes, the city development and public land use should still be able to occur without much compromise.
I remember hearing recently, maybe within the past year or two, about many disgruntled people who lived on Folly Road who lost up to 15 feet of their backyards to the construction of a new bridge in the area. To imagine that my home and property be entirely lost to the government simply to be put towards another purpose, regardless of what that purpose was, is unimaginable. I am conflicted in my thinking, because in the consideration of the greater good, it makes logical sense that the comfort of a few should be sacrificed to aid with economic rehabilitation. However, should I have been in the petitioners’ places, I believe I would have been equally as upset. Reluctantly, I have to agree that the Supreme Court decision is fair, stating that the petitioners’ argument that the plan violated the fifth amendment is incorrect. While the plan does inconvenience them, it does use the land for public services and it does aid in further economic stability.
If I were on the Supreme Court, I would not rule in favor of rule in favor of the city of New London. When the United States of America was formed, the government was created “by the people and for the people.” This guarantees that the government is only supposed to be involved enough in their resident’s lives to make sure they are protected from outside influences. This does not allow them the right to take away their land in order to make a better decision for the public. Who is to say what is better for the public? It is definitely not the governments.
If I were on the Supreme Court of this case, I would uphold the ruling in favor of the city of New London, because the comprehensive plan is using the land in favor of the city as a whole. It is in the city’s best interest to transform the land from into public use property- even though the petitioners have a valid objection to the government taking their land. The government’s right to take the land is upheld by the Fifth Amendment. Although this is an unfortunate reality for those who own the private property the government is interested in, it contribution to the public and the community as a whole is beneficial enough to warrant the government justly purchasing the land from private owners.