Kelo V. New London Case Study

619 Words3 Pages
Although I appreciate Mr. Giles excellent research of the eminent domain issue and his advice to challenge Wilmington’s seizure of Martin’s coastal property, the legal standard and precedent that has been set forth by statutory and case law affirms the city’s taking of Martin’s property by eminent domain. Although Mr. Giles and I agree on the definition of, case law history on, and the precedent nature of Kelo v. New London (2005) of eminent domain; our arguments diverge on our different understandings of the North Carolina state law. Mr. Giles maintains a strong assertion that “North Carolina law restricts eminent domain use for public infrastructure, government buildings, and blighted land” (Giles, 2015). Although this fact is true, Mr.…show more content…
For Example, the prophet Ezekiel states, “The prince shall not take…[from] the people…their property” Ezek. 46:18, English Standard Version). Notwithstanding the unbiblical nature of eminent domain, precedent setting cases such as Kelo v. New London (2005) reinforce and affirm the governments use of eminent domain (Kelo v. New London). The analogous nature of the Kelo v. New London (2005) case to that of Martin’s situation also supports the lawful seizure of his property and eminent domain (Kelo v. New London). As with Martin’s case, the city of New London took property from private individuals and gave it to private businesses for the ‘public benefit’ of redeveloping the New London community (Cohen, 2005). Further more the court - within the Kelo v. New London (2005) case - affirmed the broad concept of ‘public use’, rejected the barring of economic development as a form of ‘public use’ under the condition of ‘public benefit’, and stated that the ruling did not “blur the boundary between public and private takings,” (Cohen, 2005, p. 520). With the landmark case of Kelo v. New London (2005) and the economic development implications of the ‘public benefit’ phrase of the North Carolina General Statutes §40A-3 (b), Martin is clearly beyond the point of legal recourse in the recovery of his

More about Kelo V. New London Case Study

Open Document