Essay on "John Locke: Political Thought on Eminent Domain"

Essay 15 pages (4766 words) Sources: 15 Style: MLA

[EXCERPT] . . . .

John Locke: Political Thought on Eminent Domain and Individual Property Rights

"Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature."(John Locke)

"...living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature." This work intends to examine the thought of John Locke in regards to property and liberty. Hansen (2007) writes in the work entitled: "A flurry of opposition followed the Supreme Court's 2005 decision of Kelo v. New London. The case in essence, opened the door for government to condemn private property and redistribute it to private developers, in the name of public use." (p.2)

KELO VS. NEW LONDON

In the case Kelo V. New London (04-108) 545 U.S. 469 (2005) 268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500 the respondent in this case, specifically the city of New London approved an integrated development plan that had been developed specifically for the purpose of revitalizing its economy which was ailing. The Petitioner, Susette Kelo has lived in her home since 1997 and has extensively improved her home. The Petitioner, Wilhelmina Dery was born in her home in 1918 and is reported to have lived there for her entire life sixty years of which she has lived there with her husband, Charles. This case involved a total of nine petitioners and 15 properties.

There is nothing alleging that the properties are in any way blighted or that they are in any type of poor conditions "rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area." (Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.certiorari to the supreme court of Connecticut No. 04-108.) The city purchased the largest part of the property from sellers, who were willing however, condemnation proceedings were issued when the petitioners, and the owners of the remainder of the property refused to sell their property to the city. The petitioners in this case, one Suzette Kelo filed the state-court action claiming, inter alia that their properties being taken was in violation of the 'public use' restriction in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The Fifth Amendment specifically states:

"No person shall be & #8230; deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

A permanent restraining order that prohibited the taking of some of the properties was granted by the trial court while the trial court denied relief to others. Cases that the trial court relied on were those such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 267 U.S. 229 and Berman v. Parker 348 U.S. 26. It was held by the court that the "city's proposed disposition of petitioner's property qualifies as a 'public use' within the meanings of the Takings Clause. (Pp. 6-20)

The court's opinion in this case states specifically the following bases for its decision:

(1) While the city could not simply take the land of the petitioner's in order to benefit a private party (e.g. Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245) the "takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals," (e.g. Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245, cited in: Cornell Law School, Supreme Court Collection, 2009) Furthermore, the city held that while it had no plans to "open the condemned land -- at least not in its entirety -- to use by the general public" the Court states that it had "...long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the & #8230; public." (Cornell Law School, Supreme Court Collection, 2009) Instead the court states that it had "...embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power.( Berman, 348 U.S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986. Pp. 6 -- 13) (Cornell Law School, Supreme Court Collection, 2009)

(2) It is related secondly that the determination of the city that the area "at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference." (Cornell Law School, Supreme Court Collection, 2009) The city is stated to have developed a plan that will benefit the community in the way of jobs and increases in tax revenue. As well, the city was reported as being in the middle of an initiative of the coordination of various commercial, residential and recreational uses of the land geared toward the formation of a "whole greater than the sum of its parts." (Cornell Law School, Supreme Court Collection, 2009) In order to implement this plan the city is stated to have "invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan's comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court's review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13" (Cornell Law School, Supreme Court Collection, 2009); and (3) The proposal of the Petitioners 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. (e.g., Berman, 348 U.S., at 24: as cited in: Cornell Law School, Supreme Court Collection, 2009) The court further rejected the arguments of the petitioners that a 'reasonable certainty' should be required for these kinds of takings "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 in: Cornell Law School, Supreme Court Collection, 2009)

Sandra Day O'Connor stated at this time as follows: "(T)he government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result." (Cornell Law School, Supreme Court Collection, 2006) There were more than two decades of precedent to the Kelo decision as the Michigan Supreme Court in 1981 "...had granted the city of Detroit the right to destroy the area known as 'Poletown' and transfer that land to General Motors Corporation. It is related that Detroit News reported that 4,200 residents lost their 1,300 homes and as well 140 business and six churches were leveled. Other such takings occur across the United States following the Michigan Supreme Courts ruling against Poletown.

The questions that are addressed in this work in writing include the question of what is applicable in terms of 'natural' property rights or what constitutes the property rights of an individual? In other words how does an individual become vested with such property rights and who has the power and authority to vest an individual with the rights of a property? This work also examines the question of what purpose that government serves and what is the reason for the existence of government? Finally, this work examines the question of whether government has the right to appropriate or to take by force of law an individual's property even when it will serve the public good?

Economic efficiency, according to Hansen (2007) was stated as the "overriding justification for this type of government takings, in spite of supporting evidence that is best described as ambiguous." (p.2) Liles (2006) states that the case of Kelo v. City of London involved condemnation of properties own by "homeowners and business owners in Connecticut whose properties were condemned when the City of New London decided to redevelop and area adjacent to the site of a major drug corporation's new global research facility." (p.371) The City of New London, Connecticut had proposed taking the properties and then handing it over to private parties for building up seven parcels. It was held by the Connecticut Supreme Court that "economic development could be a valid public use and that the takings were primarily intended to benefit the public interest rather than private entities." (Liles, 2006, p.371)

II. INTERPRETATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN BY… READ MORE

How to Reference "John Locke: Political Thought on Eminent Domain" Essay in a Bibliography

Related Essays:

John Locke Circumscribing Material Items and Possessions Essay

John Locke

Circumscribing Material Items and Possessions

John Locke's views on the rights to possession (both personal and otherwise) are largely elucidated within section 50 of the fifth chapter of… read more

Essay 4 pages (1229 words) Sources: 1 Topic: Government / Politics

---

Political Philosophies of John Locke and Karl Marx Essay

Political Philosophies

When we talk about the political theories of the modern world then two names are of prime importance, John Locke and Karl Marx. These two philosophers have greatly… read more

Essay 3 pages (984 words) Sources: 3 Topic: Government / Politics

---

John Locke's Political Theories Term Paper

Locke

One of the single most influential characters in the history of nation building is John Locke. His theories and writings demonstrate a basis for support of actions that had… read more

Term Paper 19 pages (5073 words) Sources: 12 Style: Chicago Topic: Government / Politics

---

John Locke: A Brief Biography Term Paper

John Locke: A Brief Biography

John Locke was among the greatest philosophers who lived his life in one of most complicated eras in the English history. This is perhaps one… read more

Term Paper 7 pages (1896 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Philosophy / Logic / Reason

---

Eminent Domain Rulings Are Frequently Minimally Damaging Term Paper

Eminent Domain rulings are frequently minimally damaging to property owners, as only small portions of land have been seized for government use, yet there are also many cases a year… read more

Term Paper 4 pages (1368 words) Sources: 3 Style: MLA Topic: Urban Studies / City Planning / Housing

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>