The Weekly Standard‘s Charlotte Allen has revisited Kelo v. New London (2005). The aftermath is nearly as ugly as the initial case.
For those uninitiated, Kelo dealt with government’s power to seize private property. The Constitution implies and accommodates this power of eminent domain in the Fifth Amendment, so long as government seizes the property for “public use” and provides just compensation to the person losing his or her property.
In Kelo, the city of New London, CT, seized property for the explicit purpose of economic development and not for “public use.” Historically, public use has referred to things like hospitals, schools, or roads/highways, or for things that serve a common carrier role that can be accessed by the public (railroads, canals). New London seized the land to turn it over to private developers with the hope that job growth, tax revenue, and tourism might benefit. The Supreme Court determined this “taking” was constitutional because of the public “benefit” that would accrue. As Allen’s article notes, the decision touched off a wave of protest across the political spectrum.
The entire article is worth a read and should cause us to reflect on the intimate relationship between liberty in general and private property in particular.
Bereans @ The Gate - old 
Jeff Haymond
February 4, 2014
great reminder. The extended text reminds us that in the details there are often conflicting interests, not just bad people that don’t respect private property rights. Nevertheless, there is at root a significant problem with eminent domain, and Kelo crossed the line, however noble the goals.
byronb3
February 4, 2014
This article and post point out that noble intentions aren’t always reasonable justification to utilize eminent domain. Setting a bad precedent can cause serious ramifications. Kelo seems to have overstepped the limits set forth the Constitution. Public use, not public “benefit,” is the idea of the fifth amendment. Taking the amendment a step further is dangerous. Private companies see their opportunity is this era to use eminent domain for their projects.
Derek Barnhart
February 5, 2014
It’s interesting because the interpretation of the 5th amendment is up for definition. As was stated, historically there has been the idea of public use being things such as, highways, roads, etc. But even past that, public use can entail a wide range of things. And the role of the judicial branch to interpret this must fall on looking at past precedent. When we look at past precedent I turn to Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff where we see a similar scenario. It was in this case that emphasized the expansive nature of public use. And then even after this I beg the question, what constitutes just compensation? For property we would look to the market value for a reasonable price. But to who is it seen as just? To the owner, the property could carry more value to them emotionally and personally than just the market value. So then when the government compensates according to market value, does this really bring just compensation to the owner’s view of the value of the property?
Faith-Hannah Mathews
February 10, 2014
This situation seems interesting to me because although the 5th amendment is interpreted and applied differently to different cases, it seems pretty straight forward to me that giving land to private developers is not the same as public use.
ashleydibert
February 13, 2014
I can see both sides to this situation. The government should not have taken those people’s homes for the “public good,” especially if nothing happens to the property. Those houses were people’s homes. They had memories there that cannot be replaced. The property could have been in families for generations, but now it is gone. However, I feel that the government may have been trying to establish a different type of public good. The fifth amendment says that as long as the people are compensated and it is used for a public use, then it is okay. People are used to the public use being roads, schools, or hospitals. This can be used by all, and it is fair. However, this was also written in eighteen hundreds. Times are different today. If the government seized this property because they believed that big corporations could generate more revenue for the city, help with unemployment, and create a tax revenue, people will benefit from it. It is just different from what people are used to. It is unfortunate that nothing happened with the property, and I do think it is wrong of them to take it if nothing happens. However, they were trying to help their town by bringing what they seen as “public good.”
Nicole Doornink
February 14, 2014
This is a very interesting and thought-provoking situation, as it reveals the importance of our court’s interpretation of the Constitution. We have seen the importance of this in other places before, but this is on a concept which seems at first to be completely straight forward. I understand that the government of Connecticut was looking to generate “public good”, but the harmful side affects must also be considered. These properties were homes to people. Yes, the question seems to be whether or not “public good” instead of “public use” is a justifiable cause, but I would encourage them to consider whether or not the “good” achieved was even worth the harm done.
Brianne O'Dell
February 16, 2014
The idea to me that seems to be up for debate is the difference between public use and public good. Items that are there for public use will always be good for the community, but public good may or may not always be of use. The government needs to determine if the actions they are going to take are going to be for good or use before they make definite decisions that can not be undone.
Alasco
March 25, 2014
Jessica, Proudhon I hadn’t run across, innrteseitg guy! On first skimming, i think the Anarchist label may be a misnomer, he sounds almost more Libertarian in our terms
cialis dose
April 23, 2014
That’s a nicely made answer to a challenging question
bethanygustin
May 1, 2014
If this scenario is allowed there is no end to where the public domain could go. There could be a public benefit paired with any future development when stretched far enough. This is too subjective a term that could be dangerous for landowners.