Divorced mother of 5 boys, makes a fresh start by purchasing this dilapidated home in 1997 for $58,000. It was located near a raw sewage plant, and ironically, blighted. Hours and hours of sweat equity ensued. Approximately 1 year after purchasing the home, a realtor approached Susette and offered to purchase the home for an anonymous buyer. The realtor told her that Susette could either sell the home, or risk losing the home entirely to eminent domain. This is the story of Susette, and her fight to save her labor of love, her little pink home.
411 business law kelo eminent domain [autosaved]
EMINENT DOMAIN-NOT BLACK AND BUT PERHAPS A SHADE OFKelo vs. City of New London
THE PLAYERS Susette Kelo (plaintiff) City of New London(defendant)
HISTORY 1998’s New London unemployment rate was double that of the state and the population was the same as it was in 1920. In Feb, Pfizer announced that it would build a 300 million research facility in the 90 acre Fort Trumbull area 115 residential homes are located on the Fort Trumbull Peninsula
LET’S IMPROVE OUR TOWN New London Development Committee (NLDC)( a private nonprofit)received approval to revitalize a the Fort Trumbull area. Some of the revitalization will include: Parcel 1- waterfront conference hotel Parcel 2- 80 new residences Parcel 3-R&D for Pfizer Parcel 4a- support for the 90 acre facility ( Susette’s home was located in this parcel) Parcels 5,6&7 –office space, retail space, and parking
JUST THE FACTSSusette City of New London Kelo and a few others . The Connecticut were property owners legislature passed a law authorizing its in an area of New agent, New London London. They refused Development to give up their homes Corporation, to use the Federal and Connecticut in parcel 4a (aka Constitutions’ eminent domain powers to support parking) purchase the Plaintiff’s/Petitioner’s house
DECEMBER 2000 Petitioner Susette Kelo, and others bring action to the New London Superior Court. Cited the Fifth amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of nor shall private life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; property be taken for public use, without just compensation.  Superior Court grants a permanent restraining order to the properties located in in parcel 4a, but does not grant relief to those properties in parcel 3. After the Superior Court ruled, both sides took appeals to the Supreme Court of Connecticut Supreme Court of Conn. Held that all of the cities initial takings were valid
Held: The citys proposeddisposition of petitionersproperty qualifies as a "publicuse" within the meaning of theTakings Clause.
THE DECISION ( SUPREME COURT)Majority opinion Dissenting Opinion Stevens, J., delivered OConnor, J., filed a the opinion of the dissenting opinion, in Court, in which which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsb Rehnquist, C. J., and urg, and Scalia and Breyer, JJ., joined. Thomas, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. dissenting opinion
WOW….TALK ABOUT “I DON’T WANT TO HEARABOUT IT” Judge Stevens "It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area. Once the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch." Berman, 348 U. S., at 35-36.
CONSTRUCTIONISTS RULE!!!! Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. Accordingly I respectfully dissent. Sandra O’Connor
CLARENCE THOMAS “these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.”