|
Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court of the United States What constitutes a valid "public use" when a municipality exercises its power of eminent domain and condemns private property? Can property be taken solely for economic development? Should the courts use a heightened standard of review in considering legislative determinations of "public use"? These are the questions the U.S. Supreme Court considered in decideing one of the most important eminent domain cases to make it to the high court in the past 50 years. In June 2005, the Court issued a 5-4 opinion upholding the use of eminent domain as a vital community tool, as advocated by APA and others concerned with the case. The decision validates the essential role of planning in ensuring fairness in the eminent domain process. In this decision, the High Court rejected the petitioner's arguments that the city's decision to take property did not satisfy the requirements of the "public use" clause. Justice Stevens, author of the opinion states, "The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue." Stevens cited that the "comprehensive character of the plan, [and] the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption" led the Court to determine that the "... takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment." In its amicus brief, APA argued that "[e]minent domain is concededly a harsh power, and is subject to misuse or overuse if not properly constrained. But eminent domain imposes potentially adverse consequences on all who experience it, not just those who might be able to persuade a panel of judges that the purpose of a particular condemnation is not 'public' enough. The dangers of eminent domain should be addressed by assuring that it remains a second-best alternative to market exchange as a means of acquiring resources, by encouraging careful planning and public participation in decisions to invoke the power of eminent domain, and by building on current legislative requirements that mandate compensation beyond the constitutional minimum for persons displaced from occupied residences or businesses because of government condemnations."
APA's Policy Guide on Public Redevelopment, ratified in April 2004, was instrumental in providing direction to the Amicus Curiae Committee in developing the arguments in our amicus brief. Oral argument was heard on February 22, 2005. Click here for an online Visitor's Guide to Oral Argument at the Supreme Court of the United States.
|
| |
Printer-Friendly Format
