Case paper (3.1 EMINENT DOMAIN)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Norfolk State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
201
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by PrivateCaterpillar353
Bautista 1
Ivan Bautista
Dr. Evans
Philosophy 303E
Oct 18, 2022
CASE PAPER: 3.1 EMINENT DOMAIN
The case's factual background is that the City of New London is using well-a known
domain to take over private assets to build a new development. The city’s optimism is that this
new growth will boost tax income and help the neighborhood thrive (Shiell, 107). However,
some residents oppose the city's plan, arguing that it is not for the public good. The U.S. Highest
Court ruled, courtesy of the town, that its plan is constitutional.
Eminent domain refers to the administration's historic authority to appropriate private
land without the owner's consent for public purposes, such as constructing a roadway, airport,
dam, or hospital. The U.S. Constitution acknowledges this right and permits taking personal land
for "public purpose" in exchange for "fair compensation." In this instance, the City of New
London is moving the land ownership from a private entity the another. The city aims to draw
technological advancement by demolishing Susette Kelo's old neighborhood in order to revive
the area and increase tax income (Shiell, 107)
.
Some residents, like Susette Kelo, oppose the city's plan. Kelo argues that the city is not
taking the land for public use but for secluded development. She also argues that the city's plan
will not benefit the community, but only a small group of people the U.S.
The City of London
won in the Judicial Branch, finding that its plan was constitutional. The Court found that
the
government's conventional and long-accepted role in fostering economic growth is to protect the
public interest, and the city's strategy does just that.
Bautista 2
The decision has been controversial, with some people arguing that it goes against the intent of
the Constitution. However, the Court has reaffirmed its decision in subsequent cases, and
eminent domain remains a tool that cities can use to promote economic development.
The persons involved in this case are Susette Kelo, Wilhelmina, Charles Dery, and Ed
O'Connell. Susette Kelo, the plaintiff in the case, is a nurse with three jobs. The City of New
London is taking her land through eminent domain for economic redevelopment. The city hopes
that by tearing down her old neighborhood and building new developments, it will be able to
attract new businesses and increase tax revenue (Shiell, 107). Wilhelmina and Charles Dery are
also plaintiffs in the case. They are Susette Kelo's neighbors, and, like Kelo, the city is taking
their land through eminent domain. The Dery's son, Matt, is helping to fight the city's request for
eminent domain. The New London Development Corporation supervises the city's
redevelopment activities. They are working with the city to take Susette Kelo's land and build
new developments. Pfizer is a pharmaceutical company that built a research center in New
London. The city sees Pfizer as an example of the businesses they hope to attract with their
redevelopment efforts.
The
Eminent Domain case raises ethical issues concerning the use of a well-known
domain and the impact of economic development on communities. Some people may argue that
the city is taking away people's homes without their consent and that this is not in the public
interest. Others may argue that the city is acting in the community’s best interests by trying to
create new jobs and revitalize the area. The other ethical issue is the displacement of long-term
residents to benefit new, wealthier residents. This could be seen as unfair and unjust (Shiell,
107)
. The city is using eminent domain to the Supreme Court has ruled that it is permissible to
acquire personal land for economic growth has ruled that this is permissible. This means the city
Bautista 3
can take people's homes without their consent and use the land for new development. This could
benefit the community by creating new jobs and tax revenue, but it could also displace long-term
residents who may not be able to afford the new homes.
The eminent domain case was resolved by the US Supreme Court ruling that the city's
condemnation rights were constitutional. However, the dissenting opinion by Justice Sandra Day
suggested that the city's plan did not serve a public purpose and that the displacement of long-
term residents was unfair.
The use of eminent domain has been a controversial issue for many
years. Some argue that it is necessary for the government to use to promote economic
development and create jobs. Others argue that it is an unfair practice that often results in the
displacement of long-term residents, often low-income or minority groups. In this case, the
Supreme Court governed that the city's idea did aid a public persistence and that the
displacement of long-term residents was justified (Shiell, 107)
. However, the dissenting opinion
suggested that the city's plan did not serve a public purpose and that the displacement of long-
term residents was unfair.
The resolution of this case depends on one's interpretation of the concept of public
purpose. If one believes that
economic growth is a public goal., then the city's plan is justified.
However, if one does not believe that economic growth is a public goal., then the city's plan is
not justified. However, I believe that because of economic growth, the city's plan is justified is a
public purpose. The city's plan will create jobs and increase tax revenues, benefiting the
community. The displacement of long-term residents is unfortunate, but it is necessary to create
jobs and improve the economy.
The legal issue, in this case, is whether the city's plan to take Susette Kelo's stuff for
economic development purposes is constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that it is, finding that
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Bautista 4
promoting economic expansion is a legitimate public purpose. This means the city can condemn
Kelo's property and give it to an additional private party for development as long as just
compensation is paid (Shiell, 107). Kelo and her neighbors have now been forced to leave their
homes, and the area around Fort Trumbull is redeveloped.
Bautista 5
Work Cited
Shiell, Tim. "Business Ethics: A Textbook with Cases, by William H. Shaw."
Teaching
Ethics
15.2 (2015): 107
Bautista 6
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help