Talk:Kelo v. City of New London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeKelo v. City of New London was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Note regarding page move (2005)[edit]

Note - I moved the page to Kelo v. New London because it has been the practice on Wikipedia for case-articles to be under their most commonly used name (e.g. how it would appear in a textbook). -- BD2412 talk 15:37, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Prior Decisions[edit]

This is as yet a work in progress, much like the case itself. I haven't even mentioned Midkiff yet, and there's no article for Berman which is another project. I have an eye to eventual FAC for this article, but I'm not going to advertise it for peer review until the case is decided and the effect of the decision can be understood, several months from now. Still, any contributions are appreciated and will make a better article than I can alone. Thehappysmith 03:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff must be mentioned. Kelo extends the power of the government that was defined in this case. Essentially a bunch of land was owned by a few families in Hawaii. The assembly passed a law which allowed the government to take the land under eminent domain, and gave it to developers who devloped the land and then sold it to the general public.
  • Midkiff provided limitations saying that 'taking of the land must be for a public purpose, and not for the benefit of another private person, even with compensation.'All justice found in favour except Marshall who abstained. Obmitting Midkiff isn't valid.

The bench[edit]

Can we please have this, as per WP:SCOTUS? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't see why we need a section on the bench, as that information is covered in Postdlf's Court Case Infobox. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 23:44 (UTC)

Projected growth of development[edit]

In Kelo v. New London, it says "The Supreme Court of Connecticut, was "projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas."" Should we be adding this to the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

Certain portions of the "Further Negative Reactions" are blatantly not NPOV and sound like a newspaper editorial and not an encyclopedia. I'll be excising those and moving them here should anyone care to tone down the rhetoric. I'll give it a shot. Thehappysmith 28 June 2005 22:30 (UTC)

Here's what I just cut. I did some research and could not find any respectable authority making these arguments. Unless and until someone does, this doesn't belong in the article.

And it's not just the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment that's undermined by Kelo. So too is the guarantee of "just compensation." There is no need to invoke eminent domain if developers are willing to pay what owners themselves consider just compensation.
Just compensation may differ substantially from so-called fair market value given the sentimental and other values many of us attach to our homes and other property. Even eager sellers will be hurt by Kelo, since developers will have every incentive to lowball their bids now that they can freely threaten to invoke eminent domain.

Thehappysmith 28 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)

  • The authority making those arugements was the respectable Wall St Journal. It is a POV, but both sides of any court case have a POV. As long as it is clearly defined as POV (as it was), and it's counterarguement is able to be included, then it can be mentioned. Barneygumble 29 June 2005 19:55 (UTC)
Here's a quotation from one of those people supposedly involved in the initial proposal, from the Becker Posner blog.

I write concerning the misconceived hysteria about eminent domain.

Every home in America is not at risk as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Kelo, et al. vs. New London, et al. If the Kelo decision is the baseline, then before your home can be taken for economic development the following must occur.

1. Your home must be situated in commercial/industrial zone that has performed poorly with 80% commercial vacancy rate and 20% residential vacancy.

2. Your neighborhood is in need of $18,000,000 in environmental cleanup.

3. Your neighborhood has roads built and designed over 150 years ago that are inadequate to accommodate access to a new tourist destination state park.

4. Your neighborhood has water and sewer lines in need of upgrade.

5. Your neighborhood has areas below the flood plane that need to be filled.

6. Your city has unemployment double the state average.

7. Your city has suffered from a declining population. 8. 56% of your city’s land is exempt from taxation.

''9. Your local government must have prepared and approved a municipal development plan that has two basic parts: (a) public uses and public benefits, i.e., a 1,500’ public walkway along a river front (Thames River), public access to the water (Thames River), environmental cleanup, new roads and utility infrastructures; (b) economic development for new jobs and tax revenue.'

10. The plan is approved by the state legislature.

11. The plan is approved by the state executive branch.

12. Both the state legislative and executive branches agree to invest millions of state tax dollars in your neighborhood.

13. Both trial court and appellate courts of your state determine that the legislative branch did not abuse its power, act in bad faith or in an unreasonable manner.

In conclusion, the connection between economic development and the public use clause of the Constitution is a connecting bridge that must be filled with public uses and public benefits, along with economic development. If the only vehicle on that bridge is economic development, i.e., Justice O’Connor’s Motel 6 versus a Ritz Carlton, your plan will be in trouble. The majority clearly stated the law – you cannot take from “A” to give to “B”. That is not what happened in New London, Connecticut. Economic development will come at the end of the development phase after $70,000,000 is spent to clean, reshape and redesign, 90 acres of land all for the public benefit.

Thomas J. Londregan, Director of Law for the City of New London Posted by Thomas J. Londregan at June 27, 2005 01:0http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/06/the_kelo_case_p.html1 PM | direct link

Justice Souter's home[edit]

The bit about Souter's home is pure puffery. The town council would need to show the condemnation was a necessary part of a complete economic package, and given the purpose stated in the article, it is highly, highly unlikely that a court would find this to be so. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 23:20 (UTC)

I feel that the Souter home section should remain in the article, as a demonstration of the passions the case generated, if for no other reason. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the council is likely to do anything with it, but it may still be worth putting in the article. Once the news organizations pick this up (the press release was only made available today) we'll get a better view on it. Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 23:55 (UTC)
This line needs to be changed: If three of the five members of the town's board vote for the hotel, Souter will lose his home. It is possible that Souter could lose his home if three board members voted for the hotel, but it's just as likely, if not more likely, that the courts would view the project as serving an impermissible retaliatory purpose rather than a valid "public purpose" (as defined by Kelo). Maybe change it to read "...Souter might lose his home." -- Temtem June 29, 2005 01:37 (UTC)
Done. I'm looking for people that oppose Clements and support Souter. If anyone finds one to balance the Limbaugh quote, that would be cool. Dave (talk) June 29, 2005 12:37 (UTC)
  • I don't think inclusion of the Limbaugh quote was at all appropriate. The personal commentary by one pundit has only ancedotal value. If y'all really feel it is appropriate, put it back, but keep my Midkiff changes. (Kelo was the first court case since Midkiff, not Berman, to reach the high court) However, inclusion of the Souter home issue is real enough for inclusion into several prominent newspapers. If the action dies out, then the section can be later reduced or removed. Barneygumble 29 June 2005 21:10 (UTC)
  • I think that Souter owns other property besides the Weare Home. If this is so, then the Souter's Home section needs to be amended, such that it will not give the false impression that his only home is at stake.
    • True - obviously he's not commuting from New Hampshire to Washington D.C. for work every day when the Court is in session. Didn't he live with his mother? -- BD2412 talk July 1, 2005 01:33 (UTC)

Limbaugh was the only opinion I could find aside from message boards at the time. Now that there's more news, I'll add articles like this one instead. Dave (talk) July 1, 2005 03:01 (UTC)

There is disagreement with the decision. The fact that some people hold those views merits coverage. The substance of their views merits coverage. No one particular way of expressing those views is important, however. The attention this article lavishes on the publicity stunt about Souter's home doesn't add to the reader's understanding of Kelo. I would delete the subheading and delete the entire discussion, replacing it with a "See also" link to Logan Clements, and even that much is quite arguably more than the subject deserves. JamesMLane 5 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)
The media disagree with you. It wouldn't surprise me if this got almost as much press as the decision itself. And 2 paragraphs plus 2 sentences hardly seems like "lavishing" anything. I've toned it down, though. Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 13:12 (UTC)
This publicity stunt "got almost as much" attention if you confine your reading to Free Republic and various right-wing and libertarian blogs. But the press? The New York Times had extensive reporting on the decision, the majority's reasoning, the dissenters' reasoning, the reactions of the losing homeowners, and a follow-up article on "Does Supreme Court's Ruling Clear Way for More Evictions?" (available for free for a few more days at [1]). A search of the Times archive for "Lost Liberty Hotel" produced zero hits; the only hit for "Clements" in the last few weeks was a Clements who, unlike Logan, has an actual lodging (he runs a B&B near Glacier Bay National Park, according to a June 26 article about Alaska). Lest you dismiss the Times as "elitist" media, I refer you to the quintessential lowest common denominator, USA Today. The "McPaper" carried a story on the ruling ([2]) and a follow-up on the Congressional reaction ([3]). Here again, however, searches of the website for "Lost Liberty Hotel", "Logan Clements", "Logan Darrow Clements", and "Darrow Clements" all came up empty. So, even linking to a Wikipedia article about the fictitious hotel, and to a Wikipedia article about Clements, and to a Wikinews story about this subject, would collectively be enough to constitute lavishing excessive attention on an extremely minor aspect of an important Supreme Court decision -- let alone giving it a separate subheading, plus four paragraphs. JamesMLane 6 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I'll tone it down a bit. Dave (talk) July 7, 2005 12:29 (UTC)
Has anyone bothered to check if the use of eminent domain for economic development is permissible under New Hampshire law? The states have constitutions as well, and the Kelo decision does not restrict states from imposing stricter eminent domain standards. Mateo SA | talk 05:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
A good point. In addition, some places have zoning restrictions. The building of a hotel in what's evidently now a residential district might be illegal anyway. Both of these points, and others, are reasons why Clements's fax doesn't deserve anything more than a "See also" link. The bottom line is that his stunt gives the reader no insight into Kelo except to point out that some people disagree with the decision, which is obvious from the rest of the article. JamesMLane 06:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason not to include specific reasons and ways people opposed the decision. Dave (talk) 16:54, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Specific reasons to oppose the decision? By all means, include them. As I said, "The substance of their views merits coverage." The ways people opposed it? People wrote letters to the editor, they sent out press releases, they made speeches, they blogged, they wrote articles in legal newspapers and magazines (with longer ones in the law reviews certainly in the works) -- and none of this needs to be catalogued. Proposed legislation, with some actual support on the Hill, is the exception; it's significant in its own right and should be covered here. JamesMLane 09:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NH law has loopholes that allow economic development, which have been exploited in the past, however as the Kelo decision states, it does have requirements that demand that property owners be fairly compensated at a true fair market value (unlike the lowball offers in the Kelo case), including moving costs, and if it is a business, the value of the loss of "goodwill" which can be equated with a loss of business in the new location. The NH legislature just passed a state constitutional amendment to tightly restrict ED takings to properties that will be owned by government entities. This amendment goes to a statewide vote in November, 2006. Citizen Posse

Justice Breyer's Home[edit]

It also appears that residents of New Hampshire, specifically the Libertarian Party of NH and Coalition of NH Taxpayers, found that Justice Breyer has a rather extensive vacation estate in Plainfield, NH (assessed at over $600,000 and more than 4500 sq ft of space in the main house alone, plus over 100 acres of land, while his daughter Chloe holds an adjacent 100 acre tract), and announced plans to pursue eminent domain against this property to build "Constitution Park". Googling finds many references to this, and the Souter eminent domain story has continued in the press as well with the spring town elections in Weare.

Does anyone support the decision?[edit]

I'm adding stuff from news articles and opinion pages, and I'm finding that it's almost all negative. If someone could find a good article defending the decision, it could make the article more neutral. Dave (talk) July 4, 2005 16:00 (UTC)

I finally found two articles that at least justify the decision, though neither author seems happy about it. I don't know the procedure for court case articles. Should this go in the "the decision" section, or in a new section analyzing it? Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 15:06 (UTC)
Here is a generally positive piece from the San Antonio Express-News (or, specifically, it argues that people have been overreacting to the decision, and that, essentially, the Court deferred to state and local governments): [4]. Mateo SA | talk 03:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Someone deleted the reference to the Posner article on the ground that it addressed eminent domain generally, and not the Kelo case in particular. A look at the Posner article indicates that, although Posner does not take an express stance on Kelo itself, his analysis cannot be reconciled with the view of many commentators on Kelo that the use of eminent domain in situations of this type can never be justified. I have therefore reinstated references to the Posner article, but rephrased to make clear that Posner takes no position on the proper holding of the case.
The Posner link should definitely remain, especially considering his authority on the matter (writing seminal holdings on rent controls). However, the "Becker-Posner blog" link in the footnotes (not the link to the article itself) appears broken. --Adam

Technical corrections and substantive revisions[edit]

The case did not deal exclusively with private (owner-occupied) homes; as the opinion expressly notes, several of the parcels were held by investors. The case, by definition, was not first heard at the appellate level. The Court did not "recind" the quoted principle from Midkiff; the case centered on the meaning of the phrase "justifying public purpose." Not all "litigants" in the case shared Kelo's position; the city of New London was, after all, a litigant in the case. Kennedy's concurring opinion dealt with the standards used in judicial review, not the scope of legislative power.

About half the discussion of the Thomas dissent was devoted to his explanation of the theory of originalism, which is not directly pertinent to the case. The opposing constitutional theory underlying the majority decision (which goes back to John Marshall) was not given comparable treatment.

The discussion of the Cornyn proposal was technically defective; the proposed bill condemned Kelo-like takings as "unreasonable" and changed the applicable statutory law to prohibit the use of federal funds to finance such takings. The discussion of Nancy Pelosi's comments is substantially incorrect -- the linked transcript Pelosi evaded the reporter's question; the discussion treats her remarks as directly responsive.

The "Lost Liberty Hotel" is a publicity stunt with no relevance to the case itself; there is no reason to give such treatment in the article about the decision itself. Compare the treatment of private response to Brown v. Board of Education; private response/resistance to Brown was sustained and widespread (e.g., the long running "Impeach Earl Warren" campaigns), but are properly left out of the substantive discussion of the case itself.

MAGNEY, J. Judge Magney 06:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's great when knowledgeable people clean up after us mere mortals :-). I don't think that the treatment of the Pelosi issue was incorrect, though: she said she did not take a position on the case itself (as the article states) but she took a very clear position on the law proposed in congress. The direct quote reads: "when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court... I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court." So I put that back in. We don't want Cornyn's side to be the only one mentioned.
Good work overall, though. Wikipedia needs more specialists. Dave (talk) 15:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I still disagree with your view of Pelosi's comments, and would hope you reconsider them in this light: Cornyn's proposal would not withhold funds for the enforcement of Kelo; in a very real sense, there is nothing to "enforce." Kelo decided the extent of the power of eminent domain. The eminent domain power (at the federal level) can only be exercised by Congress. Whether to exercise the power is an essentially legislative decision, and Congress is free to decide not to exercise it to its full constitutional extent. Kelo did not require Congress to exercise its eminent domain power to promote economic development; instead, it declares that courts should give great deference to legislative decisions regarding its exercise. Moreover, the Stevens majority opinion (in its last full paragraph) is quite explicit regarding more restrictive limits: "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power." The same principle applies to Congressional limits regarding exercise of the federal power; Stevens alluded only to state action presumably because the case before the Court did not directly involve federal authority. I surmise that Pelosi misspoke because she had a prepared response to a similar question -- some Congressional Republicans had proposed withholding funds for enforcement of the Court's decision barring certain displays of the Ten Commandments. Judge Magney 16:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish politicians didn't make things so difficult. What do you recommend we do, given the possibility that Pelosi misspoke? Put in a (perhaps shortened version) of her quote with a note that "nothing... precludes any state from placing further restrictions"? Remove it entirely? Dave (talk) 16:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest removing it entirely. The outcry over the Court's decision has been bipartisan -- the page notes, for example, that John Conyers has introduced a bill paralleling Cornyn's proposal. Pelosi's fumbling comments go mostly to show that she was unprepared to discuss the issue. [That is not terribly surprising; it is fair to say that virtually no one expected the decision to strike anywhere near the degree of public controversy that it did. For example, in the 10 days immediately prior to the decision, a Google news search shows only around a dozen stories regarding Kelo, many (predictably) in the New London Day. In contrast, there are more than 150 stories regarding the upcoming MGM/Grokster decision.] It is easy to find inarticulate and poorly informed comments by politicians on almost any issue, but hard to find good reasons, in most cases, to preserve such comments. Judge Magney 01:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of this article is highly inconsistent. A few quick notes: (1) There are a number of sections (in particular, the discussion of Kennedy's decision) that assume an inappropriate advocacy/essay approach ("turning to the question of such-and-such..."). (2) The use of ALL CAPS for emphasis is just painful to the eyes. (3) The Day report on the chronology of the Pfizer-city contacts is cited redundantly, and the excerpting of pages and pages of the article is wholly superfluous (and probably inappropriate from a copyright perspective to boot) when a summary and footnote would be perfectly sufficient. --Adam (11/14/06)

Quotation of public use in the summary[edit]

There seems to be an erroneous quotation in the article's summary text, where public use is enclosed in quotation marks for no other reason but to force an opinion upon the reader in a sarcastic tone. While public use has been mentioned in the case opinion, it a) did not originate in Kelo v New London case (i.e. not specific to this particular case); b) does not disturb the flow of the sentence; c) isn't arcane and is quite understandable to reader. It would be acceptable had it been quoted in the main article as a direct quote with or without an accompanying hyperlink, pointing the user towards this phrase in context. However, summaries seldom require lengthy extrapolation and meant to give a quick rundown of the text to follow. This is comparable to quoting someone's praise for another party by enclosing a choice word in quotation marks (i.e. He has been described as "intelligent"). In conclusion, summary is not the most appropriate place to quote a common phrase, as it looks like authorial opinion than anything else. --Cioxx 20:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading too much into the quotation marks. It's common in the law for a standard to be referred to in this fashion to denote the particular wording involved. For example, in this very case, the reporter's summary of the decision puts "public use" in quotation marks in the first sentence, and Stevens does likewise in the first paragraph of the majority opinion. Obviously, neither of them is trying to be sarcastic. To try to put an end to this squabble, I'm rewriting the lead section to include a direct quotation from the decision, including the reference to "public use" in quotation marks. JamesMLane 21:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal briefs contain certain concepts in quotation marks to remove ambiguity. It would be faulty to try and compare a legal document to a Wikipedia article, which is intended for general audiences who need information -- not semantic integrity meant for legalistic purposes. The last edit is fine by me as it situates the public use phrase within proper context. --Cioxx 22:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: you are correct that "public use" did not originate in Kelo. It comes from the text of the Constitution: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Constitution, Amendment V (1791). Most likely it was put in quotations in this article because the case dealt with defining what fits into the ambit of "public use". Although I agree that large parts of this article, if not sarcastic, are certainly cynical.

Pelosi[edit]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) believes that the proposed laws would violate separation of powers and that it would require a constitutional amendment to alter the meaning of the Fifth Amendment as interpreted by Kelo: "when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court... I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court."

This statement by Nancy Pelosi is clearly misguided. The Supreme Court decision merely found that the takings clause does not prohibit government entities from using their eminent domain powers for economic development. The Court didn't find, or come anywhere close to finding, that the Constitution does not allow the legislatures to prohibit subordinate government entities from using eminenet domain powers for such purposes. In other words, the Court did not find that there is a Constitutional right for, say, a City to be able to use its eminent powers without interference from the state or federal government--it merely found that the Constitution does not prohibit that City from excercising its eminent domain powers for economic development. I believe the Kelo Court specifically left open this matter to the legislatures.
These proposed laws would in no way "nullify a decision of the Supreme Court," and I don't believe that anyone with a Constitutional law background has backed Pelosi up on this. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) If this is true, and Pelosi is alone on the matter, what is the point of including the quotation? --64.60.140.146 01:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Link to Pelosi's statement does not actually say that the article claims it says. The link provided is the home-page of a series of press releases, so it is of doubtful credibility. Likely it was taken out of context.68.33.203.109
Whether or not Pelosi knows what she's talking about, her opinion matters in terms of the legislation resulting from Kelo, because of her position. From what I read, she confused it with another bill that actually was an attempt to "nullify" a supreme court decision that had come out earlier that week and got her facts confused. If you could find evidence that she's been better informed since this quote, I'd be happy to change it (or you could change it yourself). Dave (talk) 03:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I just saw that Judge Magney beat me to this issue over a month ago. Sorry I didn't respond in that area of the discussion page. My concern is that the inclusion of the quotation serves more to ridicule Pelosi than to provide information relevant to the article, but if she hasn't retracted the statement, which she easily could have done, I suppose she deserves the continuing attention. --Temtem 03:47, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


I have removed the line 'She did not take a position on the decision itself.' Her statement is clearly a position. It is hard to credit the idea that the House Minority Leader is so befuddled as to not know the difference between a mandate by the Supremes which requires funding and a simple striking down of a Constitutional limitation argument. Indeed, the Justices who voted in the majority have made it clear that they would personally welcome restictions on takings coming from the Legislative branch, and no doubt Pelosi has clerks who have read their decision and later statements which make this clear. Also, the idea that Federal money must be spent on any activity that is not strictly unconstitutional is clearly absurd. It is not unconstitutional for the Federal Government to grant me subsidies to bungee jump off of every suspension bridge in Wyoming. Does that mean that they are required to? This is merely a transparent attempt to find an excuse to block legislation that would -- even slightly -- limit takings. Just because Ms. Pelosi has resorted to intelligence-insulting rationalizations to fig-leaf her intentions does not mean that these intentions are not clear. --David Isecke 11:17, September 16, 2005 (UTC)

Money or brick?[edit]

If your house is confiscated in the USA, do you get money compensation only, or do you have the right to demand compensation in naturalis, instead? That is to receive a same or better quality house provided elsewhere free of change in exchange for your demolished home? If there was this dual choice people would be better protected against losses in condemnation cases. 195.70.32.136 09:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt Stevens say something about government legitemacy?[edit]

I was speaking to my debate teacher about the eminent ddomain topic, and she said that to quote Stevens on what he said about government legitemacy. Did he really say something like that?

Current Status[edit]

Did the plans for the City of New London ever happen? I heard somewhere that the plan fell into shambles, can I get a confirmation and/or link?

Title of article[edit]

In order to conform to accepted forms of legal citation (see Bluebook), the title of this article should be changed to Kelo v. City of New London. Does anyone object if I do this? I would of course keep a redirect at this page. Hydriotaphia 15:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within 24 hours, if I don't hear an objection, I will move this page. (I hope this doesn't sound ominous or something. This really, really isn't meant to sound like a threat. Per legal citation norms, however, it really should be renamed). Please tell me if you object! Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 05:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay here, with a redirect at Kelo v. City of New London redirecting here. Titles should be what the subject is most commonly known as, and in this case, most people refer to it as Kelo v. New London. Similarly, Brown v. Board of Education isn't titled Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Pepsidrinka 06:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear to me that your example proves what you want it to prove. The correct legal citation of Brown would indeed be Brown v. Board of Education, not Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 07:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then I'm clearly mistaken. I was under the impression that the latter (i.e. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka) was the correct legal citation. And sure enough, after looking it up, that is the case. In light of this, your move would be appropriate, IMHO. Pepsidrinka 12:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your help. I'm going to go ahead with the move in the next 10 minutes or so. Hydriotaphia 21:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio--Norwood v. Horney cleanup[edit]

Almost every paragraph ends in a question mark, like this was a high school essay or something. Re-write needed badly. Desertsky85451 17:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Amendment limits Kelo decision[edit]

See the Times Picayune (New Orleans) Sept. 27, 2006 A1 Needs to be added to the list of states that have reacted to Kelo.

Opinion Essay[edit]

Unsourced opinion essay moved from the article page to here. Anyone wanting to make an attempt at sourcing and NPOVing this is welcome, but as it currently stands, it's inappropriate on the article page.--MikeJ9919 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Stevens had warned in the Court's opinion that "[t]here is...no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes that we have recognized." That is, the Court found no logical content to the concept of "economic development." Nothing daunted, many states and other political entities proceeded to "restrict" eminent domain with regard to "economic development." The result raised the question, whether restricting eminent domain with respect to this term, restricts it at all? The few cases litigated with respect to it, seem to show the parties contesting whether a taking involves economic development or not, and the courts struggling to give some meaning to this anomalous term.

Restricting eminent domain with respect to all facts--raising the level of scrutiny for all facts with respect to eminent domain--has not been considered. For example, no government entity has adopted a rule which says, "Eminent domain shall not be exercised unless it substantially furthers an important government purpose," which would be intermediate scrutiny for all facts in the context of eminent domain. On the other hand, no fact has been elevated in scrutiny in the context of eminent domain. For example, no government entity has adopted a rule which says, "Eminent domain with respect to housing shall not be exercised unless it substantially furthers an important government purpose."

There is apparently something in public opinion--not to mention, the political system--which resists elevation of any specific fact in the process of reforming eminent domain. The reason appears to be the daunting questions--and their implications--which instantly arise once that is done, for example:

1. If housing is elevated in scrutiny with respect to eminent domain, what is the logic of restricting that elevation of housing to eminent domain? Why not elevate the level of scrutiny for housing in the contexts of zoning, taxation, and any other health and welfare regulation? This question appears particularly urgent, since there is an extensive ongoing debate as to whether there is any logical content in the distinction between zoning and eminent domain (the so-called "inverse condemnation" debate, and the movement in several states to demand eminent domain-like fair market value compensation for changes in zoning laws).

2. If housing is elevated in scrutiny with respect to eminent domain, what is the logic of restricting the elevation of the level of facts in the eminent domain context, to housing alone? Why not elevate the level of scrutiny for education in the context of eminent domain? This, in turn, is particularly pressing in the context of RLUIPA, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which elevates freedom of religion to strict scrutiny in the eminent domain context where Federal funds are used in connection with the taking. A U.S. District Court has found the law unconstitutional, and the Ninth Circuit currently has the decision under review. The District Court found that only the Court can say what, in fact, is freedom of religion, and that RLUIPA so changed the role of government with respect to this fact, as to constitute a violation of the separation of powers! In short, RLUIPA is a Marbury v. Madison-type violation. This extraordinary finding shows the volatility inherent in making any change to the scope of currently exercised government power, not only in the eminent domain context, but also, in the entire area of health and welfare regulation. Which leads to...

3. If housing is elevated in scrutiny with respect to eminent domain, what is the logic preventing, say, the elevation of the level of scrutiny for education in the context of taxation? of medical care in the context of zoning? and so on.

The questions proliferate--and so does their profundity--the moment eminent domain is even touched. The public appears not yet ready to confront those questions. The hesitation has led to eminent domain reforms which arguably do not reform eminent domain. Nevertheless, as commentators have pointed out, even twenty years ago eminent domain did not arouse public ire. This means that there has been some sort of change in political opinion with respect to facts and their relation to government, which has found expression--in however incoherent a fashion--in the new opposition to eminent domain. Eminent domain reform is one of the arenas in which this change is going forward.

This Article Is Very Very POV[edit]

This is not an encyclopedia article, it is a rant written by somebody (or somebodies) who did not like the outcome, yet has not studied the Supreme Court's Takings jurisprudence. "Public purpose" has been a "public use" since the 1950s. See, Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954). This article, while certainly reflecting the general public distaste for the case, is almost entirely puffery, talks surprisingly little about _the actual case_ and does nothing to edify. I simply deleted large chunks of the article because there was no citation and could not possibly be citation because most of it is newsletter op-ed material. Before simply reverting the deleted chunks please have some kind of rational dialogue on this page.

Look, keep reverting it. Fine. This article is absolutely horrible. It is ostensibly about the *US Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London* but hardly any of it is actually about the *court opinion*. Please create other articles, such as "Public reaction", "legislative reaction" etc. What is up is an op-ed. Unsourced. Completely POV. Ridiculous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.64.164 (talk • contribs) .

Removing large chunks of an article looks like vandalism, which is why it keeps getting reverted. However, putting your comment here is certainly appropriate and makes it clear that you are not vandalizing the article. Wikipedia does encourage boldness in editing. That being said, it is my opinion that if you are not going to attempt to re-write the sections that bother you, you should make your points here prior to simply removing the section. I think I agree with some of your points, but, again, I think such wholesale chopping of the article should be discussed first. -Kubigula (ave) 05:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is that I question whether the portions I deleted *should* be re-written. Here are my main complaints: 1. The intro makes it seem as if this was a "ground breaking" case that decided for the first time that "pubic use" includes "public purpose". However, "public purpose" has been recognized as "public use" since Berman v. Parker (see my comment above). 2. "New facts revealed after the decision". This info is not about the actual court decision. I assume it is written by somebody who hated the decision. This is an article about the US Supreme Court's decision, as such it is not fair to try to color the public's perception of the Court with after-the-fact accusations that are not sourced. Wait, everything in that section is in fact sourced. To something called "The Day". But no internet links are given. I assume this is because "the day" either isn't real, or it or the author of the alleged piece has an anti-kelo agendan. 3. "Litigation + BUrden of Proof." again, this is not about the *ct decision*. IMO it is there to try to persuade the reader that the ct incorrectly decided the case. 4. "So You've Stopped an eminent domain use -- now what?" The title alone sounds like a cheesy late night infommercial. It's not properly sourced. It's not relevant to the decision. 5.The Majority and Concurring Opinion section is even highly sketchy. It keeps referring to this "The Day" paper. Look, the article is about the decision. It should quote from *the opinion* not some potentially dubious newspaper.

For now, I am going to continue with my "bold edits". However, since it is getting late, I probably won't keep it up for much longer tonight ;-)

I have re-edited out the portion "New facts revealed after the decision". This should become a new article, it is not relevant to the actual court decision, and the source is unreliable. I re-deleted portions of the "maj. and concurring opinion" section because it is sourced to the same unrelaible source as "new facts...". I re-deleted "litigation + BoP" because it is not relevant to the court decision, and its legal accuracy is dubious. I re-deleted "so you've stopped an eminent doman use" because it is not relevant to the court decision, and its legal accuracy is dubious.

Also: if you plan to re-add the portion titled, e.g., "So You've Stopped An Eminent Domain Use -- Now What?" will you please include in this space a discussion on how it is relevant to the article? Same goes with "Litigation + Burden of Proof". I need to see where you're coming from else I'll simply continue to delete en masse. Thanks.

Thanks for your work on this. Your editing reflects good judgment, in my opinion. An encyclopedia should not quote long, undigested blocks of text from manifestly biased sources. I agree with you about the article's POV. It makes my skin crawl to think press would cite to this. Incredible that previous cases defining public use weren't even mentioned here. As you say, this wasn't a legally revolutionary change, but the article inappropriately makes Kelo seem uniquely outrageous.
However, I think you're defining the topic too narrowly. Subsequent history should have a place in this article. The effects that decisions have on public opinion are appropriately put into articles about Supreme Court cases.
Would you consider registering as a user? It makes talk page discussion easier. Cool Hand Luke 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State reactions[edit]

Currently we list just three state's putative reactions to Kelo, but I think there are at least 12 states[5] to have proposed and/or passed amendments or laws, and many cities as well. Currently, we just list three states. We go into considerable detail for New Hampshire (and we also did for California's initiative too, before it failed).

I don't think we can't create a heading for every jurisdiction alleged to have consisdered changing their laws over this decision. We certainly can't go into as much detail as NH has—it's simply not topical. I propose we condense this section into a pithy block about "State and local reactions", including a good cite for every jurisdiction as a jumping off point for research, and leave it at that. It's beyond me why an article about Kelo should include language for every anti-eminent domain law, and it's not obvious why New Hampshire deserves such special treatment. Cool Hand Luke 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire "subsequent history" portion could be tightened and condensed. There is no question that the public was intially outraged at this decision and such reaction should properly be included here. But (1) it doesn't mean that the public will always find this case objectionable (i.e., keeping an eye on the bigger picture that wikipedia should have an encyclopedia focus rather than a current event focus); (2) it doesn't mean that the case itself will be influecial in takings jurispruduence [e.g., there aren't wiki entries on many other canonical takings cases such as mahon, penn central, lucas, loretto, nollan/dolan, etc)...not to mention other cases exploring the contours of "public use" such as berman and midkiff (perhaps one of those has an entry?)]; (3) it doesn't mean, as you correctly suggest, that the kelo article should be a launching point to attack the idea of eminent domain. My feeling is that this article was created by somebody with an anti-kelo agenda, and it will take a while before it is massaged into a comprehensive, encyopedia style entry.129.210.218.152 02:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. v. Virginia was a gender discrimination case and so intermediate scruitny was used. Using it as an example in the holding section as an example of the application of rational basis (minimum) scrutiny is therefore erroneous.

-- "Prior to Kelo, seven states specifically prohibited" ... "As of June 2012, 44 states had enacted" ... "Of those states, 22 enacted laws" ... "The remaining eight states have not passed laws" ... Could someone help me with the math here? Do we still have 50 states in all?

Images[edit]

I have quite a few more images of the neighborhood, including an amusing one with a billboard saying something from the Department of Energy is going to be put in. Does anybody want me to upload some more of them for inclusion in the article? As it is I think 3 is enough. -N 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Development plan POV[edit]

There are lots of problems with this article, but I'm wondering what the problem in the development plan section is. It looks like a flat description, and from what I can tell it's accurate. Cool Hand Luke 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press just reported this update on the development: "Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation's most notorious eminent domain project... But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing." Grundle2600 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed[edit]

The statement that eight states "specifically prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington." needs to be substantiated. Does anybody know what this claim is based on? E.g. the Arkansas constitution doesn't say this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.94.234 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should have a source. That list could be wrong or incomplete. A state could bar municipalities from doing it by statute, however. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

I am quick-failing this article because of the presence of a cleanup banner. Since December 2007, the article has been tagged for disputed neutrality. Please ensure that this problem is addressed before its next nomination. In addition, the article needs to be thoroughly referenced with properly formatted references. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for the {{cite web}} template.

Please note that this is not a thorough review and that other problems may exist with the article. I recommend placing it for peer review before it is renominated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic background[edit]

If I haven't missed anything with too quick reading, I think this case description is missing detailed background information on what actually happened in the property transaction that prompted Suzanne Kelo et al. to sue the City of New London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookoo (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public Reaction Edit[edit]

I deleted the part about people in New London not liking Susette Kelo and their finding it "suspicious" that she fixed up the house. I've been reading about the case since it came down (law geek, :-/ ) and I've never heard anyone say this. All I've read indicates that she just really liked the house. (Jeff Benedict's book Little Pink House talks about how much she loved it for a long time.) The fact that the sentences were phrased as "some people" make me wonder what the source of the claim is. Anyway, I think it should be left out unless someone can source it to an article or an interview with someone from the town, etc. JohnDoe3337 (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. The phrase "some people" is among the weasel words that should be avoided in wikipedia articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

typo footnote 4?[edit]

"The decision was supposed?" Opposed? 24.0.97.201 (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just Compensation[edit]

I was wondering if how much was offered to Kelo et al. for their land would be important in this article; also, I was wondering where to find reliable source for that information. Thanks in advance user:crisco_1492 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.59.99.168 (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New wrinkle[edit]

Detroit wants to save itself by shrinking provides another interesting facet to this case. The city is considering removing blight of nearly abandoned neighborhoods and turning them into park or even back into farms and an one of the tools mentioned in getting those to move who may not want to is eminent domain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that really relates to this case. Eminent domain was already well established for purely public purposes before Kelo. bd2412 T 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct spelling of M{r}s. Kelo's name?[edit]

Is the woman's name Suzette or Susette? It is spelled two different ways at different points in the article and in one of the quotes. Velowiki (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Susette". From the Supreme Court case: "Petitioner Susette Kelo has lived in the Fort Trumbull area since 1997." ([6]). From the book "Little Pink House," written with Kelo's cooperation: "But the stirring story behind what drove Susette Kelo..." ([7]). TJRC (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

I was referred here from a website, and am unfamiliar with the case. Should I assume that the "real property" that was confiscated was the home of Susette Kelo? Since other plaintiffs are mentioned, should I assume that it was an apartment building or condo complex that was demolished, or were several privately-owned houses involved? I read the article twice (admittedly rather quickly), but I didn't find any section that described exactly how the case began; only that it "arose in the context of condemnation... of privately owned real property." WaxTadpole (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Source[edit]

Here is a new source covering more recent status of the land including the Pfeizer backed out: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/20/seized-property-sits-vacant-nine-years-after-landmark-eminent-domain-case/.--v/r - TP 17:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kelo v. City of New London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kelo v. City of New London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Kelo v. City of New London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kelo v. City of New London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kelo v. City of New London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kelo v. City of New London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kelo_v._City_of_New_London&oldid=1207944843"