One of the questions posed to candidates in the forum-to-which-I-was-not-invited was how they felt about the Kelo Decision. This was a case in the US Supreme Court related to land takings, or eminent domain. It relates to the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, sometimes called the Taking Clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".
The decision was 5 to 4, that the city of New London could use eminent domain to force property owners to sell their land to the city so that an economic development project could move forward. I imagine it is somewhat relevant to the House District 54 election, since the 29 Road improvements will involve some landowners ceding portions of their front lawn to the project. Although in the Kelo Decision, there was one additional twist that is not present in the 29 Road improvements—the city of New London used eminent domain for the benefit of an economic development entity that was not the city per se.
There was a lot of public consternation that the Kelo decision would lead to large corporations gaining an advantage over individual homeowners or local communities. As a result, many states changed their eminent domain laws to prohibit land takings for economic development except when the purpose of the development was to eliminate blight.
What is my opinion of the decision? Government is here to protect “we the people,” not “we the corporations.” This isn’t the first time that the US Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in a controversial decision, and it isn’t even the most egregious display of corporate favoritism. I’d much rather discuss Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Homework:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0202/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-finance-ruling-just-the-facts
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_153f0ece-14d4-11df-b566-001cc4c03286.html
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/32_million_state_grant_to_help
http://www.gjcity.org/CityDeptWebPages/PublicWorksAndUtilities/RiversideParkway/PDF/29RdPDF/CorrectedBenefitCostAnalysis.pdf
http://www.rothgerber.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=639
The decision was 5 to 4, that the city of New London could use eminent domain to force property owners to sell their land to the city so that an economic development project could move forward. I imagine it is somewhat relevant to the House District 54 election, since the 29 Road improvements will involve some landowners ceding portions of their front lawn to the project. Although in the Kelo Decision, there was one additional twist that is not present in the 29 Road improvements—the city of New London used eminent domain for the benefit of an economic development entity that was not the city per se.
There was a lot of public consternation that the Kelo decision would lead to large corporations gaining an advantage over individual homeowners or local communities. As a result, many states changed their eminent domain laws to prohibit land takings for economic development except when the purpose of the development was to eliminate blight.
What is my opinion of the decision? Government is here to protect “we the people,” not “we the corporations.” This isn’t the first time that the US Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in a controversial decision, and it isn’t even the most egregious display of corporate favoritism. I’d much rather discuss Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Homework:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0202/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-finance-ruling-just-the-facts
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_153f0ece-14d4-11df-b566-001cc4c03286.html
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/32_million_state_grant_to_help
http://www.gjcity.org/CityDeptWebPages/PublicWorksAndUtilities/RiversideParkway/PDF/29RdPDF/CorrectedBenefitCostAnalysis.pdf
http://www.rothgerber.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=639
RSS Feed