QUICK SUMMARY OF THE KELO CASE'S ESSENTIALS
Pfizer, the chemical/pharmaceutical company, wanted to build a large facility in a more or less "rundown" area of New London, Connecticut.
The city of New London, seeing the possibiity that the large new facility would broaden its tax base and benefit employment in the area, wanted to condemn all the property under its "eminent domain" powers. The concept of "eminent domain" allows the taking of private property for government use, with compensation to the owner(s). (See REF.)
New London's idea of "government use" (or "public use") included the idea that the ultimate good for the community in this case was to condemn the properties and then turn it over to Pfizer for their new facility.
Suzette Kelo (spellings vary as "Susette"), a resident, along with the other landowners, did not want to surrender their properties and brought suit under the Fifth Amendement's "Takings Clause*" of the U.S. Constitution and it ultimately went to the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) based on the "public use" concept, since the property was to be turned over to a private entity, Pfizer.
The majority opinion (5 to 4), that New London could do this, was based on some prior cases which seemed to allow this expansion of the definition of "public use."
The dissenting opinions basically disagreed with the prior cases. (Justice Thomas offered an "originalist" opinion based on what he felt was the Founders' original intent, rather than on those prior cases.)
The properties were therefore "taken" by the City of New London and the houses were eiither razed or moved.
Pfizer, because of other business decisions, decided not to build its new facility after all, and in fact moved its entire operation out of Connecticut.
The properties are now a vacant area. Ms. Kelo's home was moved to another location.
There was a lot of controversy surrounding the SCOTUS decision.
As a side note, and what
RevDisk is referring to, is that the vacation property of Justice
Brewer Souter was also "taken" in a separate matter elsewhere.
There are a lot of hits when you search for "Kelo v city of New London" and it was a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it.
Feel free to correct me on the above, but I think that covers it in
essential details for those not familiar with this famous case.
I do not think this is a thread veer, since we have been talking about "holdouts" in the first place.
In this case, the "holdouts" lost.
Respectfully submitted,
Terry, 230RN
(Edited 09 Apr for minor corrections)
* REF (The Takings Clause):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Takings_clauseThe entire wiki article on this case provides some insights into the thoughts of the individual Justices, as well as later modifications of some states' laws on "eminent domain." A long read, but well worth it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
