Kelo case - FINA366 – by Simon Dörpinghaus
As a member of the US Supreme court I would vote for the use of eminent domain in this particular case. Although the city seized private property to sell it to a private company it is in the interest of the whole society.
First my decision took into account that the city of New London had a very depressed economy. The objective of every city is to support the economy to grow and to propel prosperity. According to this it is important to encourage big companies like Pfizer to build new facilities inside their city boundary. The settlement of Pfizer affect big Research and Development companies and other distributors to build their offices next to this new technic park. That means that Pfizer would…show more content… An economist measures every decision in total welfare. The fact that Pfizer provides hundreds of jobs would help a lot of people to get out of unemployment. In the following passage I will lay out that the welfare increase exceeds the welfare decrease of some occupants by far and that is what matters:
First every employed citizen adds money to the total income of the city. And as we know Pfizer is an export company, which means that the corporation brings outside income into New London. So Pfizer adds money to the economic base of the city. The economic base is the crucial part of city, because a town can only thrive with an healthy base. New London has not had an economic base, because of the closure of naval facilities in the 1990s.
Furthermore new companies pay a huge amount of taxes to the local government. Every citizen will benefit from the rising budget of the city. The money could be used to build infrastructure, schools or parks, which affect the entire community. I don’t want to go in detail with other side effects of high employment rates, but one must consider fewer crime rates, less social payments and higher satisfaction level of the citizens as