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.
Manufactured Crisis: Losing the Nation’s Largest Source of Unsubsidized Affordable Housing
Manufactured housing communities have long been an affordable housing option for millions of people living in the U.S., but that affordability is disappearing rapidly. How did we get here?
Americans May Be Stuck — But Why?
Americans are moving a lot less than they once did, and that is a problem. While Yoni Applebaum, in his highly-publicized article Stuck, gets the reasons badly wrong, it's still important to ask: why are we moving so much less than before?
Using Old Oil and Gas Wells for Green Energy Storage
Penn State researchers have found that repurposing abandoned oil and gas wells for geothermal-assisted compressed-air energy storage can boost efficiency, reduce environmental risks, and support clean energy and job transitions.
Updating LA’s Tree Rules Could Bring More Shade to Underserved Neighborhoods
A new USC study finds that relaxing Los Angeles’ outdated tree planting guidelines could significantly expand urban tree canopy and reduce shade disparities in lower-income neighborhoods, though infrastructure investments are also needed.
California's Canal Solar Projects Aim to Conserve Resources and Expand Clean Energy
California’s Project Nexus has begun generating electricity from solar panels installed over irrigation canals, with researchers and state agencies exploring statewide expansion to conserve water and boost clean energy production.
HHS Staff Cuts Gut Energy Assistance Program
The full staff of a federal program that distributes heating and cooling assistance for low-income families was laid off, jeopardizing the program’s operations.
Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools
This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.
Planning for Universal Design
Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.
Heyer Gruel & Associates PA
City of Moreno Valley
Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS)
City of Grandview
Harvard GSD Executive Education
Salt Lake City
NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
City of Cambridge, Maryland
