In California, there’s never been a tougher time to be in the business of taking private property from one person and giving it to another. First, Governor Jerry Brown proposed eliminating the state’s 400 some redevelopment agencies. Now, the agencies have been told by the courts that declaring blight just won’t do: They actually have to prove it before they can use eminent domain. The Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London said that economic development was a valid use of eminent domain, as long as the government is following …
On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision affirming the state of Connecticut’s right to evict U.S. citizens from their homes for purposes of “economic development.” In Kelo v. City of New London, plaintiff Suzette Kelo, who had recently bought her dream home on the bank of the Thames River, sued to stop New London from using its eminent domain power to condemn and destroy her home. New London wanted to destroy Kelo’s home so that Pfizer, Inc. could build $300 million research facility. …
A key provision of proposed legislation to bailout General Motors and Chrysler, which say they are on the brink of insolvency, may be an unconstitutional taking of private property. The Takings Clause of the Constitution has been the subject of considerable public interest since the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision involving the taking of a private residence for the benefit of a pharmaceutical manufacturer. To protect taxpayers, the legislation requires that government loans to the automakers be given priority over all other debt held by the companies. In general, when a …
