Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2005

Home

Page 2 --August 10, 2005 Supreme Court Case-- City takes private property for commercial development Claims development will create jobs, tax revenue, and better aesthetics Citation: Kelo v. City of New London, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 04-108 (2005) CONNECTICUT (06/23/05) ~ Tl~e city of New London had been a dis- tressed municipality for some time. These conditions prompted the New London Development Corporation to assist the city in planning economic development. The corporation decided the Fort Trumbull area, a peninsula jutting into the Thames River, was a perfect spot to build a waterfront conference center to attract new business and jobs. The center would have restaurants, shopping, marinas, and 80 new residences. The plan was designed to create jobs, generate tax revenue, build momentum for the revitalization of downtown, and make the city more attractive for leisure and recreation. However, 115 property owners in the Fort Trumbull area would be displaced by the plan. To put the plan into action, the city began using its eminent domain power to start condemning the privately owned properties. The properties were neither blighted nor otherwise in poor condition -- they were condemned sim- ply because they were in the development area. The property owners sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. The owners appealed, and the court again ruled in the city's fax>or. The owners a/ppealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming the takings were illegal because only private parties who would now own businesses or pr°p- erty in the new development area would benefit, not the public as a whole. DECISION: ~ed. The city could take the property because it clearly was doing so for a public' us..e. ' Though the city could not take land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, the takings here were part of a development plan that was not intended to benefit a particular group of individuals. Although the land would not be open to use by the general public, the city still could justify the taking of the land as a valid public purpose. The city's determination that the area sufficiently was distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation was entitled to deference. The city care- fully formulated an economic development plan that it believed would provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As in other exercises in urban planning and development, the city was endeavoring to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational uses of land, with the hope that the users would form a whole greater than the sum of the parts. To do this, the city invoked a state statute that specifically authorized the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the comprehensi~,e character of the plan, and the fact it served a. 64 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.