A public good would be any good open to all the members of the community as considered under the term public to partake in the usage of that good without discrimination. Public goods are goods or services that are beneficial to the community at large without the removal of opposing minority samples. It has already been shown that this was a public good because it benefited the community of New London as a whole and everyone was afforded equal access. This development project was set to bring new jobs to the area and to increase tax revenues within the city.
This is clearly a public good, new job means lower unemployment, and lowered unemployment means that the economy will inevitably improve. When people lose their jobs the economy declines because there is no money to be spent in keeping the circular flow of the economy going. Giving people jobs means giving people money and it has been proven time and time again that when people have money…they spend money and they are likely to spend the majority of it within their hometown. This is exactly what the City of New London needed, a project to be put in place that would stimulate their economy.
This development plan was good for everyone contained within the “public” of New London because it ensured the bringing about of economic prosperity for the town. New London was considered a depressed economic area and the purpose of this development plan being drafted and put into action was to counteract the city’s economic position. The petitioners were not considering the public in bringing suit they were considering themselves because the public in general stood to gain a great deal from this undertaking. This project was to take place within public space with everyone in New London being allowed access.
If the development plan was such a horrible idea the developers wouldn’t have been able to acquire and assert eminent domain, but they were. The property was seized without consent because it was in the best interest of the town as a whole. No, it wasn’t put in place to build a highway or a school but it was put in place to establish a public good for the purpose of improving the surrounding community’s economic position. It had already been determined that the city was a distressed area and the project would bring about “appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue” (S.
Kelo v. City of N. L. 268 Conn. ) making the resistance of the petitioners invalid. This was a good established for a qualifying public use. The plan was given adequate and sufficient consideration prior to approval and once it was approved it was implemented within reason. The Court had to consider what was in the best interests of the public as a whole, not the private interests of a portion of that whole, and that is exactly what they did; I myself would have affirmed.
Explanation of the Bill of Rights. Cornel University Law School. http://www. law. cornell. edu/constitution/constitution. billofrights. html#amendmentv Kelo v. New London (04-108) 545 U. S. 469 (2005). Argued 22 February 2005—Decided 23 June 2005. Susette Kelo, et al. , Petitioners v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. 268 Conn. 1, 5, 843 A. 2d 500, 507. Takings of Private Property. Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. University of Missouri Law School – Kansas City. http://www. law. umkc. edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings. htm