Public outcry: Kelo v. City of New London - a proposed solution.

 
I. INTRODUCTION 
II. THE FACTS 
III. THE MAJORITY OPINION 
IV. DISSENTING OPINIONS 
V. THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA REACTION TO KELO 
VI. POST-KELO STATE EMINENT DOMAIN LEGISLATION 
VII. EMINENT DOMAIN: ORIGIN AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENT 
VIII. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR STATE 
      ACTION UNDER EQUAL PROTECTION 
IX. "INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY" FOR EMINENT DOMAIN "IN ECONOMIC 
     REDEVELOPMENT CASES 
X. CONCLUSION 

Trust, but verify. (1)

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court delivered an opinion concerning eminent domain in the usually mundane and tranquil area of real property law. (2) The public reaction to this decision was anything but mundane and tranquil. (3) Instead, the reaction was more like an explosion of outrage. Why was the public reaction to the Kelo v. City of New London decision so extreme, was it legally justifiable, and could the Supreme Court have fashioned its opinion in such a manner that the public outcry would have been avoided or at least muted? These are the primary questions the following discussion addresses and, hopefully, resolves. However, to begin, this Article briefly presents and explains the facts of the case and the holding of the Supreme Court.

II. THE FACTS

In the latter decades of the twentieth century, the city of New London, Connecticut experienced so much "economic decline" that one of that state's agencies designated it as a "distressed municipality" in 1990. (4) A few years later, in 1996, federal authorities closed the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had been located in the Fort Trumbull area of town, a move costing New London over 1500 jobs. (5) By 1998, New London had an unemployment rate nearly twice as high as the rest of Connecticut and the city's population had ebbed to a level last seen in 1920. (6)

Understandably, state and local authorities began seeking ways to stimulate the local economy, especially in the old Fort Trumbull area, and in due course, utilized the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to do so. (7) In 1998, state officials approved issuance of bonds to begin funding NLDC projects and the Pfizer Company announced a plan to spend $300 million building a facility adjacent to the Fort Trumbull site. (8)