Kelo v. City of New London: An Inadvertent Landmark Decision?

Public Deposited
Analytics

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
Request Version for Screen Reader
Last Modified
  • February 28, 2019
Creator
  • Ruppe, Angela
    • College of Arts and Sciences, Department of City and Regional Planning
Abstract
  • Land use issues generally are perceived as questions to be resolved by municipal and state governments. Local conditions shape these decisions, and courts usually defer to the judgment of local governments in determining how best to carry out land-use decisions and comprehensive planning efforts. Each land-use action of a local government, though, operates within a larger framework that is bounded by the federal constitution. The Fifth Amendment provides limits on landuse planning through its mandate that the government shall not deprive an individual of property unless it is for "public use" and "with just compensation." Commonly known as the "Takings Clause," this legal measure ensures that all levels of government cannot abuse their powers of land-use control and eminent domain. Most land-use controversies do not rise to the federal level, but takings jurisprudence over the past fifty years shows an increasing number of cases which involve questions of government overreaching onto private property rights. The recent Kelo v. City of New London decision (June 2005) adds to the growing line of case law that deals with property rights. Kelo's central issue involves whether a local government may use its powers of eminent domain to condemn property and sell or lease it to a private developer who is operating within a formal economic development plan created by the local government. Grossly simplified by the press as a contest between poor homeowners and a greedy government's desire to take their homes and give them to private developers, the case excited the popular imagination in a way that is odd for land-use decisions. Bolstered by the growing property rights movement and the emotional elements associated with removing individuals from their homes, the case mushroomed into a bipartisan cause that extended beyond the planning and real estate professions. The Supreme Court's decision in favor of New London prompted a national cry of outrage and led to a rush to tighten eminent domain laws at all levels. The strong reaction suggests that Kelo was a landmark case in the course of takings jurisprudence. Given a solid line of federal precedent, though, Kelo is not a remarkable decision. The backlash that it has engendered, though, is notable, and this fallout promises to have an immediate and direct impact on land-use planning and community development. Kelo's deference to land-use decisions made by local governments may have the unintended consequence of stripping these governments of important legal and financial tools needed for sound, comprehensive community planning.
Date of publication
Subject
DOI
Resource type
Rights statement
  • In Copyright
Advisor
  • Rohe, William
Degree
  • Master of City and Regional Planning
Degree granting institution
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Language
Location
  • New London, Connecticut, United States
Extent
  • 66 p.
Access right
  • Open access
Date uploaded
  • December 10, 2010

Relations

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Items

Thumbnail Title Date Uploaded Visibility Actions
file details Kelo v. City of New London: An Inadvertent Landmark Decision? December 10, 2010 Public Download