The United States Constitution gives the government the right to take land from its citizens for public uses, such as a public school, hospital, or roadway. This power is called eminent domain, and it has become a topic of great debate recently. The Constitution states that the land must be for “public use”, and the Fifth Amendment states the government can’t take land without “just compensation.” But what exactly constitute as “public use?” Can it be an increase in the tax base on an area through the introduction of private office buildings? How much compensation is going to be given to a person whose small beachfront property is going to be turned into a high rise apartment building? Should the government (or states under the Fourteenth Amendment) be using eminent domain to take land for private development to begin with? These are some of the moral questions that have been asked recently about the power of eminent domain and the way it is being used by the government.
Most of the controversy about eminent domain began after the case of Kelo v. New London was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2005. In 1998, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer began to build a new research facility near the town on New London, Connecticut. City leaders tired to use this new facility to restart New London’s poor economy. In a redevelopment plan of the area, New London needed to purchase 115 parcels of land from private owners and investors. All but 15 sold their parcels. New London used the power of eminent domain to get the remaining 15, saying taking the parcels and turning them into new, privately owned apartments, offices, and retail space was “public use” because the public would benefit from the increase to the area’s economy and tax base. The remaining residents, led by Susette Kelo, stated that the proposed redevelopment of the property didn’t qualify as public use and filed suit against the city of New London.

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court ruled New London did have the authority to take the land from Kelo and the other residents. The opinion of Justice Kennedy stated that giving the land to New London was constitutional under eminent domain because it would benefit the community at large. Kennedy citied that New London knew of the economic problems in the area and realized this was the best way to end them. He also wrote that such a development would have a positive impact in the long run because the project would attract businesses and residents not originally thought of in the plans. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in her dissenting opinion, stated that the precedent established in this case would allow the government to take poor, depressed neighborhoods and turn them over into the hands of wealthy private investors. O’Connor argued that this perception of eminent domain eliminates the line between public and private property. Justice Clarence Thomas also issued a dissenting opinion, saying that New London’s promise of new jobs and better tax revenue from a costly redevelopment plan, without any evidence that the plan would work, couldn’t be considered “public use”.
New London’s original actions and the Supreme Court’s later ruling outraged citizens across the country. Many feared that the federal and state governments would soon use the case to justify similar redevelopment projects. Such fears haven’t gone unrealized. In Lakewood, Ohio the City of Lakewood tried to use the power of eminent domain to force homeowners in the area Scenic Park off their land. Lakewood’s plan calls for over 50 homes to be taken in order to construct apartments and business facilities. Lakewood’s mayor, Madeleine Cain, claimed that the project served the “public good” by giving Lakewood an increased property tax base. She also claimed that the area was “blighted”, a condition which would legally allow the City of Lakewood to use eminent domain. Lakewood’s definition of “blighted” states that houses must have an attached two car garage, central air conditioning, and three bedrooms, among other things, in order to avoid being defined as “blighted”. In one meeting with council members, residents of Scenic Park pointed out that, under these conditions, even the council members’ homes could be deemed “blighted.” The homeowners in this case won by voting down the proposed redevelopment, and later voted Mayor Cain out of her office.
These two cases are two of some 10,000 or so similar cases, according to the non-profit group Institute for Justice, who represented the homeowners of Scenic Park. State and local governments all over the country are seizing land for the “public good”. Almost no one in these legislators stops and thinks about the affect seizing land like this has on the citizens of their jurisdiction or society at large. Using eminent domain for private development doesn’t help the people in the neighborhood, because they’ve either been forced out by eminent domain or may be forced to leave once property taxes go up in order to pull more revenue from the redevelopment. Building expensive condos or apartments means that the area will be fundamentally changed. The people moving into these pricey homes are probably well off enough not to need help from the government. It also sets an example of just taking something if you can’t get it any other way, almost a kind of government sanctioned stealing.

ACE Program Presentation

Name Project
Name Goals: why did you pick it? Where is it?

Design
Use concept pictures and sketches, ideas we had during development (the crazier the better). Show evolution of the terminal through the progression of the sketches. Inspiration for the designs.

Programming
Talk about site facts, terminal technical info like power, water usage. Show site layouts and overviews with rendered terminals from SketchUp and Wings 3D. Good information for terminal would be site, size, capacity for passengers, measurements. Mention all the extra stuff we added to LaGuardia in order to accommodate the new terminal