This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
Unformatted text preview: claiming the city was attempting to take the land for private use, the case reached the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of New London claiming the Takings Clause was not violated and the plan was constitutional. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case was just and fair. The City of New London’s project was intended to be used to bring a dying city back to life by creating new jobs and increasing the city’s revenue. Since the Takings Clause allows the government to seize the property of the owners as long as compensation is made, the property owner’s do not have much leverage in this case. The City of New London’s plan included a waterfront conference hotel and stores which would be deemed as public use of the property. (524) References: Beatty, J. F., Samuelson, S. S., & Bredeson, D. A. (2013). Introduction to Business Law (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning....
View Full Document
- Winter '14
- Supreme Court of the United States, Kelo v. City of New London, takings clause, new London Connecticut