Kelo v. The City of New London has been a constant topic of debate because of the way the case has been handled.
According to Rapp (2005), the US Supreme Court’s decision that “non-blighted property” and its use for economy development only gratifies the Fifth Amendment and nobody else. Since Kelo’s policy of destroying low income families and communities in the name of better public facilities is doing nothing for community development.The whole case goes on to show how minorities and low income families are facing racial abuse in the run up for the countries economic development and wealth redistribution, displaying the fact that American judges are being unjust by upholding laws because equal justice has not been given. Somin and Adler (2006) say that the decision is going to adversely affect not only the environmental but also any future conservation project. This will later lead to adverse affects and unfriendly environmental developments in the future. Thereby giving property owners in some cases no rights or no control over what can be done on the property in name of economical development, thereby affecting the states and then later the countries economic growth and wealth.The American political system has underdetermined property laws owned by both private property owners as well property developers, because the compensation that is being remitted is below the current value of the property itself which goes on to explain that these changes only benefit of property developers and some individuals but not the greater population. Laws need to work together to uplift the minorities, low income families and for sustained development of the environment and not for short term gains.
The only people that are set to gain are the elite class of society and not the middle class or the environment.ReferencesRapp.K.T (2005), Law Review Summaries: Racial Lines and Property RightsEqual Justice Society e-Newsletter – Issue 5 – Fall 2005 Somin.I and Adler.
J.H (2006). The Green Costs of Kelo: Economic Development Takings and Environmental Protection. George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 06-10. Case Legal Studies Research Paper No.
06-07. Washington University Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 3, 2006