Last week marked the third anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. New London. The first time I read Kelo, I thought what many Americans probably thought: that any government could seize property for any reason, so long as it compensated prior owners. But after having taught Kelo to law students several times over the past few years, I now realize that Kelo is much more complex. Kelo was a 5-4 decision, and Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a separate concurrence. Because Justice Kennedy was the “swing vote”, his decision predicts future Court decisionmaking more accurately than the Court’s primary opinion, because a taking which fails to satisfy Kennedy might not be able to get five votes in the Supreme Court.
Last week marked the third anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. New London. The first time I read Kelo, I thought what many Americans probably thought: that any government could seize property for any reason, so long as it compensated prior owners.
But after having taught Kelo to law students several times over the past few years, I now realize that Kelo is much more complex. Kelo was a 5-4 decision, and Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a separate concurrence. Because Justice Kennedy was the "swing vote", his decision predicts future Court decisionmaking more accurately than the Court's primary opinion, because a taking which fails to satisfy Kennedy might not be able to get five votes in the Supreme Court.
Justice Kennedy wrote:
This taking occurred in the context of a comprehensive development plan meant to address a serious city-wide depression, and the projected economic benefits of the project cannot be characterized as de minimis. The identity of most of the private beneficiaries were unknown at the time the city formulated its plans. The city complied with elaborate procedural requirements that facilitate review of the record and inquiry into the city's purposes.
Thus, the taking in Kelo was valid only because:
1. The city jumped through the appropriate procedural hoops, such as creating "a comprehensive development plan" and other "elaborate procedural requirements";
2. The city of New London was in a "serious city-wide depression";
3. The economic benefits of the taking were more than "de minimis"; and
4. The ultimate beneficiaries of the taking were "unknown at the time the city formulated its plans."
If any of these requirements are not met, the validity of a taking becomes a close call. For example, suppose the city wants to bulldoze a subdivision in a reasonably prosperous suburb to build a Wal-Mart. Even if appropriate procedures are followed, factors 2 and 4 (city-wide depression and "unknown" beneficiaries) are not met. Thus, Kelo is not on point and does not require lower courts to uphold the city's decision. Does this mean the city automatically loses? No, but it does mean that a plaintiff who wishes to challenge the taking may have a plausible claim.
New London, Four Years After Kelo
The 2005 Supreme Court decision on Kelo v. New London was a landmark in eminent domain law, paving the way for Pfizer to develop there. Four years later, Pfizer is pulling up stakes.
Vermont Land Use Case Could Go to Supreme Court
Property owners argue that a new law protecting wildlife corridors amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property.
Dakota Access Pipeline Owners Win Eminent Domain Appeal in Iowa Supreme Court
The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that found that the Iowa Utilities Board was justified in giving the private owners of the Dakota Access Pipeline the use of eminent domain. Climate change was considered in the ruling.
Planetizen Federal Action Tracker
A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.
Amtrak, CN end decades-long dispute with eight-year agreement
The new operating agreement establishes an updated framework for the companies to work together, including processes to resolve disputes.
Judges permit Denver to divert 77,000 acre feet from the Colorado River for reservoir expansion
Overuse and climate change have caused the Colorado River’s water levels to plummet.
Idaho may see an 18% drop in federal surface transit funding — the largest estimated cut in the US
Transit systems in rural communities are much more reliant on federal funding to provide their services.
How ‘post-disaster gentrification’ alters neighborhoods after natural calamities
After hurricanes, fires or other calamities, the original residents of a community are often replaced by younger, wealthier residents.
Maryland local governments examine if they should have more power to raise property taxes
Maryland’s housing market is out of reach for the majority of moderate-income residents.
FREE Course: Walkable City 1: Why Walkability?
After describing his path towards focusing on walkability as the essence of good planning, Jeff Speck marches through his five principal reasons for making more walkable places.
Reinventing Malls: Planning Alchemy—Turning Gray Fields Into Gold
The course focuses on the opportunities and imperatives that shape reinvention of mall sites.
Harvard University Graduate School of Design
KFH Group Inc.
Greater Baltimore Committee
The Architects Foundation
University of Cincinnati Online
The Pocatello Development Authority
The Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Pocatello
