Although I can understand the petitioners argument in this case that their private property should not have been seized, given my understanding of all the elements involved I would have to say that I completely agree with the Supreme Court’s decision and if the case had been heard before me I would have made the exact same ruling. In the case of Kelo v. New London (04-108) 545 U. S. 469 (2005), the petitioner brought suit claiming protection under the 5th Amendment Takings Clause but the Takings Clause had absolutely no bearing on the decision in this case because it has no bearing on the facts of the case.
The U. S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment Takings Clause simply states that private property can’t be taken and put to public use without proper compensation (Cornell Amendment V) being given to the owners of that private property. The Takings Clause doesn’t apply in this case because the plaintiff was given that opportunity. She was offered suitable compensation for her property just as the other owners of allocated property needed for use in the development plan.
Here is my understanding of the case: The city of New London in the state of Connecticut approved a development plan for economic revitalization. A development agent was hired to represent the parties involved in the revitalization effort. This agent contacted the owners of all properties earmarked for demolition or use in the endeavor, including the plaintiff, purchasing any property that the owners were willing to sell. When the petitioners refused to sell the development agent and representatives initiated condemnation proceedings.
I can understand why the petitioners would be bothered by this, but they brought suit claiming that the agents actions were against the Takings Clause’s public use definition and it wasn’t. The petitioner was given the opportunity to acquire just compensation prior to the initiation of condemnation but refused payment. There could have been dozens of reasons and a varying degree of rationale involved in the denial of the agent’s offer but that has no bearing on this case.
My understanding of pubic refers to anything that relates to or affects the public in general – whatever community of people may be involved whether it be a town like New London or the entire United States. The term “public” means a large group or majority of people with the same interests, whatever those interests may be. In the New London instance the interest would be economic prosperity for the city.