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
Show More
Related

  • Case Study: Kelo V. New London

    1685 Words  | 7 Pages

    REAL ESTATE FUNDAMENTALS FALL 2014 Monica Skibicki, Ozioma Nwofor, Kelly Moran TEAM RESEARCH PAPER: Kelo v. New London PART1 1. The doctrine of eminent domain is power the government has to take private property for public use and to only have to compensate the owner for the private property. For this, the government does not need the private property owner’s consent. Private owners have the right to oppose the taking of the property but are generally unsuccessful

    Read More

  • Kelo Case: FINA366 By Simon Dörpinghaus

    449 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

More about Kelo V. New London Case Study

Open Document