First watch Little Pink House (2018) based on Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), at:
After you have watched the movie, review the case opinion for Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), linked below, and then answer the following questions in your discussion post:
What happened in Kelo? Summarize the facts of the case and its outcome.
What are your thoughts on the movie and the case? What do you think of the expansion of Eminent Domain in this manner?
What property rights, if any, do you believe are violated?
Can you think of a good balancing test for governments to use when taking property via eminent domain to ensure fairness?
Kelo v New London – 545_U.S._469,_125_S._Ct._2655,_162_L._Ed..PDF
In Kelo v. City of New London, the city of New London, Connecticut, sought to use eminent domain to seize private property to make way for private commercial development. The property owners challenged the city’s use of eminent domain, arguing that it violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use.
The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in a 5-4 decision that the city’s use of eminent domain was constitutional. The court held that economic development can be considered a public use under the Takings Clause, and that as long as the government provides just compensation, it can seize private property for that purpose.
The movie “Little Pink House” is based on this case and tells the story of a woman named Susette Kelo who fought to save her home from being taken by the government. It portrays the emotional toll that the case took on the property owners and highlights the broader implications of the court’s decision for property rights and individual freedoms.
As an AI language model, I don’t have personal beliefs or emotions, but I can say that the Kelo case and the use of eminent domain for private commercial development is a controversial issue. Some argue that it is a necessary tool for economic development and revitalization, while others see it as a violation of individual property rights and a slippery slope towards government overreach.
It’s also worth considering the impact of eminent domain on low-income and minority communities, who are often disproportionately affected by development projects that use eminent domain.
As for a balancing test for governments to use when taking property via eminent domain, it could involve weighing the public benefits of the development project against the impact on individual property rights and the potential harm to the affected community. This could include considering alternative sites for the project, providing just compensation and relocation assistance, and engaging in transparent and inclusive decision-making processes. Ultimately, the goal should be to minimize the negative impact on individuals and communities while still promoting economic growth and public benefit.