A case currently before the Supreme Court may potentially alter the practice of eminent domain and could have serious implications for local governments, economic development practitioners and private property owners. Kelo vs. City of New London concerns the right of the city to use eminent domain for the purpose of promoting economic development.

Facts of the case
In February 1998, Pfizer, Inc. announced that it was developing a global research facility on a site adjacent to the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The City of New London gave initial approval to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private, non-profit corporation, to prepare a development plan for the Fort Trumbull area. The plan, tailored to accommodate the Pfizer facility, would transfer the land in the Fort Trumbull area to a private developer, which would in turn build a waterfront hotel, conference center, office spaces and expensive condos to replace the older homes and businesses. The NLDC estimates the 90-acre development plan would produce a significant economic impact, including the creation of jobs and close to $1 million in property tax revenue.

After adopting the development plan in January 2000, the City delegated the power of eminent domain to NLDC to acquire properties within the development plan. NLDC purchased many of the neighborhood properties, yet some residents, 15 homes in total, resisted redevelopment efforts. In October 2000, the NLDC voted to use eminent domain to acquire the remaining properties from owners who would not sell voluntarily, including petitioner Susette Kelo.

Implications
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Historically, eminent domain has been used to condemn private property to make way for public uses, such as bridges or highways, or to improve blighted areas. At question in this case is whether economic development, vaguely defined, constitutes a public purpose.

Advocates for individual property rights say recent interpretations of the "public use" clause are too broad. They argue that, because businesses generate more taxes than homes, local governments will likely abuse their eminent domain powers to favor private business interests. Attorneys on behalf of Kelo are arguing to hold municipalities to a higher standard of review for public use when using eminent domain. The case was heard by the Supreme Court on February 22, 2005 but has not yet been decided. All cases argued during a term of Court are decided before the summer recess begins, usually by the end of June.

Additional information related to this case and constitutional law in general is available on the FindLaw website: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/. The American Planning Association is also following this case: http://www.planning.org/amicusbriefs/kelo.htm.