AC502 Unit 5 Assignment Case Study 
Taking Clause- Kelo V. City Of New London Ct
AC502: Regulation
Taking Clause- Kelo V. City Of New London Ct
Introduction to Case In New London Ct, the town was going through a hardship and the unemployment rate was doubled then the normal for that state. This prompted the government to look at redeveloping an area for some new hotel and stores and even a research facility. This new development would also include some private residents. While most of the owners sold to the city some refused to sell and took it to court in protest stating that the city was violating the taking clause. The court found no evidence that the city was violating the taking clause. (Beatty, 2008)
The Taking Clause The taking clause in in place to allow some government agencies to take private property if the owner refuses to sell when this property will be used for the public. Whether this is for a new government building or the expansion of a road. One thing about this takings clause is that the government must compensate the owner for any of the property it takes. So if the government only need to take possession of half the property then they have the option of selling the whole property to the government or the government can compensate them for half of the property. This measure cannot be used if the government is planning on the property being used solely for private use, this would be a violation.
My Opinion My opinion in this case is that the city did not violate the takings clause, the city tried to first purchase the property and these few refused causing them to act on the clause. The property they are taking possession of will be converted in to public building and will get the town up and booming again. On top of the owners getting compensated for their property they will have a chance at helping the city recover instead of watching the city go to ruins. The way I see it yes the property may have been in the family for years, but what good is the property
AC502: Regulation
Taking Clause- Kelo V. City Of New London Ct
Introduction to Case In New London Ct, the town was going through a hardship and the unemployment rate was doubled then the normal for that state. This prompted the government to look at redeveloping an area for some new hotel and stores and even a research facility. This new development would also include some private residents. While most of the owners sold to the city some refused to sell and took it to court in protest stating that the city was violating the taking clause. The court found no evidence that the city was violating the taking clause. (Beatty, 2008)
The Taking Clause The taking clause in in place to allow some government agencies to take private property if the owner refuses to sell when this property will be used for the public. Whether this is for a new government building or the expansion of a road. One thing about this takings clause is that the government must compensate the owner for any of the property it takes. So if the government only need to take possession of half the property then they have the option of selling the whole property to the government or the government can compensate them for half of the property. This measure cannot be used if the government is planning on the property being used solely for private use, this would be a violation.
My Opinion My opinion in this case is that the city did not violate the takings clause, the city tried to first purchase the property and these few refused causing them to act on the clause. The property they are taking possession of will be converted in to public building and will get the town up and booming again. On top of the owners getting compensated for their property they will have a chance at helping the city recover instead of watching the city go to ruins. The way I see it yes the property may have been in the family for years, but what good is the property
References: Beatty, J and Samuelson, S. (2008), Cengage Advantage Books: Introduction to Business Law. (4th Ed).