Question: 1 In dissenting opinions members of the Court argued that

1. In dissenting opinions, members of the Court argued that this decision makes all private property vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner (against established principles the Court mentioned earlier), so long as the property is upgraded in some way. Moreover, they argued that this decision is advantageous to large corporations or individuals with political power or connections, while those with few resources are disadvantaged. Do you agree? Why or why not?
2. Would the case have been decided differently if the project built only a large industrial park? Why or why not?

The City approved an economic development plan that was projected to create more than 1,000 jobs and increase taxes and other revenue by constructing a waterfront conference hotel; a marina; and various retail, commercial, and residential properties. The City’s development authority designated a large area composed of adjacent parcels of real estate to be condemned in order to redevelop the property consistent with the redevelopment plan, and the City’s agent brought condemnations via the power of eminent domain against nine unwilling owners. Although the City conceded that the condemned properties were not part of the blighted areas, they were condemned simply because of their location in the proposed development area.

Sale on SolutionInn
  • CreatedNovember 06, 2014
  • Files Included
Post your question