Eminent Domain for Economic Development Memo, Research Paper Example

Eminent Doman Issue

The origin of this landmark casedcame from the condemnation of the city of New London, Connecticut privately owned real estate property. The goal of the destruction of the property was to use the location for a new comprehensive redevelopment plan. However, a private developer was hired to complete the redevelopment but could not find financing which they had no choice but to abandoned the redevelopment project. As a result, the land was left as an undeveloped empty lot. The state and local governments believe they should have the right to increase their use of eminent domains for urban improvements ,which is this case the government would be able to redeveloped the New London owned property based on the eminent domains. In addition, forcing the owners to sell the property to the city of state for redevelopment projects.

The landmark case has serious implications concerning eminent domains because many city and local governments have abused the power allowing lucrative building projects in the city while not spending the same type of revenue to rejuvenate the older neighborhoods that have been dilapidated poor neighborhoods for many years. The importance of this ruling can impact many city and state deals that are lucrative for the local revenue however, not addressing the real needs of the roads, highways and true revitalization projects of poorer neighborhoods. The jury is out on whether the Supreme Court will set a new standard in social revitalization or will the courts continue to allow the city and state make lucrative redevelopment projects that do not serve the best interest of the people. This remains one the most crucial decisions that will affect future decisions in other jurisdictions concerning the power of city and state government.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

In the Supreme Court ruling report that agreed that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development. The local and state government believed the redevelopment and revitalization would benefit the public. One of the Supreme Court judges interpretation of this favorable ruling is the court cited “public use” definition to include the improve of highways, bridges, land redistribution and the beatification of condemned or empty properties.  The courts ruled that the Supreme courts may not entering into an assumption of what the state or local government might do with distress property because they are within federal laws to improved economic development for the betterment of the city or state. The courts have decided that to interfere with the normal functions of the city and state is not the job of the Supreme Courts. They do not see any reason not to allow the city and state to expand their jurisdiction and extend their reach in applying the eminent domain laws. In addition, the Supreme Court cannot be interfering with public lawsuits against the city unless that specific incident is a problem with personal or privacy rights by law. The law is intended to give the city and states the power to improve the vitality and redevelopment as needed for the improvement of the city as a whole. It is the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the decision that the city of London, Connecticut has every right to apply the eminent domain laws to the empty land.

Opinion

The Supreme Court decision on the eminent domain has several different problems and flaws. The first obvious problem is the wealthy land owners that want to build condominiums instead of needy affordable housing for the population. They will be allowed to circumvent the fair process with lofty incentives for the local and state government to give permits to build the high-price luxury condominiums. The second problem is a social nightmare because the poor tenants are forced to move without any support or funding to help them relocate to a better living situation. The traditional route for the wealthy is to displace the old neighborhoods while never providing any financial incentives to help the poor.  The third problem is many sports franchises that are making billions of dollars traditionally want the state or city to pay the bill to construct the stadium. The city and state traditionally agrees to build the stadium with the tax payer paying the bill. However, the owners and the government agencies are the ones that gain millions while the people do not benefit. The best example the city and state wants to bring in a high rise condominiums along with a new stadium citing it will bring thousands of jobs and millions in tax revenues. However, in the end the sports franchise makes all the revenues, they gain all the jobs and the people of the city are left to pay the bill.

The Supreme Court decisions is not a very good decision and it needs to be revisited with a little more consideration of what is best for the people. Finally, this open the door for serious repercussions such as the city and state making a decision to redevelopment the downtown hotel of Super 6 and allowing it to be replaced by Embassy Suites because it brings in more revenue that the Super 6 and it can handle more people for the Superbowl or World Series events. The bottom line the city and state have too much control in development projects allowing the wealthy to control the outcomes. The city and state responsibility of bringing prosperity and new jobs that help the people have quality of life has lost it meanings and intent. The best example is two cities fighting over who is going to build a new stadium for a national football team. The NFL football teams makes 300 billion dollars per year plus cable and TV contracts. However, the city needs funding from the water damaged from the hurricane and people are stranded with no food or water yet, the city and states does not spend the redevelopment monies to build safe havens for devastated families. The Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong for continuing allowing the city and states over step their bounds in building redevelopment projects that do not benefit the people of that city or state.