Comment: The Supreme Court ruled in

(See in situ)


The Supreme Court ruled in

Kelo v City of New London:

(c) Petitioners’ proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U.S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners’ argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a “reasonable certainty” that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court’s precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties’ legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U.S., at 26. Pp. 13—20.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

The land seized by the City of New London sits vacant to this day.

New London never actually received those taxes. The case's notoriety dampened interest in doing business at the stolen property, and then the economic downturn killed the project. Journalists visiting the scene have found the land to be "barren."

That means the city lost money on the deal: the cost of the legal battle plus the potential tax revenues from homes and businesses forced out and never replaced.

http://www.examiner.com/article/susette-kelo-s-revenge-new-l...