Taking Clause - Eminent Domain (E.M., 2020) PDF

Preview

Summary

Professor Cook's Class...

Description

Name: __________Edgar Moreno___________ Date: _______12/10/2020_______ WORKSHEET 4/TOPIC 7 ASSESSING EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE 5 TH AMENDMENT IN Kelo v. City of New London (2005) Directions: First, please review the following resources. 1) The syllabus (the first 2 pages of the pdf document) of the Supreme Court’s holding in Kelo 2) Pages 389-391 of the course textbook (Dye & MacManus, 2015) 3) The video whose link is enclosed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6wrBbgsj34 4) The Heritage article whose link is enclosed here: https://www.heritage.org/report/states-votestrengthen-property-rights Then, address the questions below. Each question is worth 5 points, for an assignment total of 20 points. 1) What is the factual background of Kelo v. City of New London? What triggered a constitutional controversy? o New London a city in Connecticut wanted to seize the private property in order to sell to Pfizer (a private developer). The City itself felt the land would create a lot of new jobs and overall increase the tax revenue. The city of New London would then use the area (around 98 acres) surrounding Pfizer which was privately owned by homeowners to sweeten the deal and sell it to Pfizer therefore increase their land. Suzette Kelo one of the lands near the Pfizer property along with several neighbors disputed the sale and refused any transaction. Due to the resistance the city of New London took it upon themselves to enforce Eminent Domain pushing for the that taking clause ultimately removing the owners and opening the land up for the city to sell in efforts to “revitalize the economy”. In the case Kelo V New London, the City offered money and when payment by some of the resident was denied they claimed the public use portion of the taking clause would refer to economic revitalization which at the time the court interpreted public use to allow that generic response for public use. Therefore, seizing the property of the landowners and attempting to resell it.

2) What constitutes a “taking,” according to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution? What does the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment require for the exercise of eminent domain power? o Eminent Domain requires two aspects to be acted upon in order for the taking clause to be in effect. Act one is that the property owner who is losing their land must be payed “just pay”, this allows it to become a paid transaction rather than the city just taking land from the people. Act two states that the land seized must be used for Public use, meaning the land must be available to the public in some form or another i.e., parks, roads, etc.

3) What is “public use”? How did the Court define “public use” in Kelo? Why is it significant? o Public use is a term that can be interpreted in different ways, my interpretation of the term when in use of the taking clause would have to refer to; any land seized by the state must be used to create an area for the public to access and use free of charge. In the Court Case Kelo V. New London, the courts interpreted “public use” as anything that bring a benefit to the public. The significance behind that decision while stating the legality of the action carried by the state it showed the vagueness in the interpretation of the eminent domain policy and opened eyes to other states leading to a stricter specification to public use ranging from state to state. 4) How have states sought to strengthen private property rights, in the wake of the Kelo decision? Give 2 examples. Explain each. o Idaho - In Idaho a citizen initiative designed a rework to protect private property by prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development or to transfer property from one private owner to another, that were then detailed in the constitution itself. The rest of the clause remained the same in the form of “just pay”, o Nevada: - Nevada has specified that Eminent Domain cannot be used to seize one private owners land in order to resell it to another owner’s land. On top of an added amendment. The residents in Nevada felt that in all eminent domain cases, the government must have the burden to prove public use and take it to vote for two consecutive elections....