Case Analysis Kelo V.

Running head: KELO V NEW LONDON

Kelo v New London Supreme Court Analysis

Statement of Facts

The State of Connecticut designated the city of New London as a “distressed municipality” in 1990 due to decades of economic decline. By 1998 the city’s unemployment rate was double that of the state, and its population was under 24,000, the lowest since 1920. To combat the condition of the distressed municipality, Connecticut authorized a $5.35 million bond issue, in January 1998, to New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a nonprofit entity set up to assist in economic development, to rejuvenate life into New London. An additional $10 million bond was issued to build Fort Trumbull State Park. A month later, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc. chose to build a $300 million research facility next to the future state park location (U.S. Supreme Court, 2005).

In May 2005, NLDC formally submitted and received state approval for the rejuvenation plan. The development plan was comprised of seven parcels focused on 90 acres of the Fort Trumbull area. The area included approximately 115 privately owned properties. The idea of the plan was to capitalize on the new Pfizer facility that would create new jobs, generate new tax revenues and jumpstart the economy of New London.

The city council approved the development plan in January 2000, and authorized NLDC, the development agent, to purchase property or acquire property by exercising eminent domain in the City’s name. NLDC successfully negotiated most of the real estate in the 90-acre area with the exception of the petitioners. With the unsuccessful negotiations for the nine petitioners’ fifteen properties, NLDC began the condemnation proceedings that started this case. The condemnation only came because the properties were located in the development area (U.S. Supreme Court, 2005).

Once the city began proceedings to acquire the properties using its eminent domain power, Kelo and other non-sellers filed suit in...