10.0 EDSR 02-13-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

T ~ i(~ League of Minnesota Cities -1.-ill 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Laog~w ofM~.~wom C.'tia. (651) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122 C'tiar plnmoting aural/enro Fax: (651) 281-1299 • TDD: (651) 281-1290 www.lmncorg Fact Sheet on the Case of Kelo v. New London U.S. Supreme Court Case: Kelo et al v. New London, Ct, et al. (No. 04-108) This case is an appeal by property owners from a decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2004 that the Public Use Clause does not prohibit taking private property for economic development and revitalization purposes. 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?" Case Summary: In 1990, Connecticut officially designated New London a "distressed municipality" that urgently needed economic growth. In 1996, New London suffered another devastating blow when the Navy closed a large defense facility, putting 1,500 more people out of work. After years of careful planning, public hearings, and community outreach, New London city officials decided to build a 90-acre waterfront redevelopment project near historic Fort Tmmbull that will include retail, residential, and commercial space, a waterfront hotel and conference center, marinas, and other public amenities. The Fort Tmmbull project will bring up to 2,300 jobs to unemployed New London residents and as much as $1.2 million in tax revenue for improved city services. New London acquired 98 percent of the land needed for the project through voluntary purchases, but a handful of owners refused to sell. The property owners, who collectively own 15 homes located on two parcels comprising 1.54 acres in the City's proposed 90-acre redevelopment area, challenged the City's use of eminent domain. They did not win at trial or on appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The homeowners asked the U.S. Supreme Court to override the state supreme court decision. On a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court mled in favor of the City of New London. Quotes From the Majority Decision: "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." "The city's determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER