Kelo v. City of New London
Plaintiffs are a group of homeowners in the Fort Trumbull area of New London. In an effort to stimulate economic development, the City of New London had created the New London Development Corporation ("the development corporation") that, in 1998, had prepared a development plan for the Fort Trumbull area. A major component of the plan, which included condominiums, hotels, and a conference center, was for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer to build a new plant in Fort Trumbull. The development corporation stated its goals for the development plan were to complement other facilities built in the area, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront and eventually "build momentum" for the revitalization of the rest of the city. The city council approved the development corporation's plan in 2000 and authorized the corporation to acquire properties within the development area. After initial offers to the landowners, the development corporation voted to use the power of eminent domain to acquire properties within the development area whose owners had been unwilling to sell. At that point, the plaintiffs brought the present action challenging the condemnations.
Following a bench trial, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. The court first determined that the use of eminent domain for economic development did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. According to the court, economic projects that have the public benefits of creating new jobs, increasing tax and other revenues, and contributing to urban revitalization, satisfy the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The court also determined that the delegation of eminent domain power to the development corporation was constitutional because the development corporation was the city's statutorily authorized agent for the implementation of the development plan and was not acting to further its own operations.
Question Presented:
What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums
or blight, but for the sole purpose of "economic development" that will perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the local economy?
