When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469(2005), a constitutional and legislative shock wave rumbled across the country. States changed their statutes and constitutions on when and how local government could take private property for redevelopment purposes, and property owners began resisting local redevelopment plans. The Kelo case began in 1978 when the city of New London, Connecticut, undertook a redevelopment plan for the area in and around the existing park at Fort Trumbull. The plan had the goals of the ambience a state park should have, including the absence of existing pink cottages and other architecturally eclectic homes that had long been part of the area, one of which was owned by Susette Kelo. The central focus of the plan was getting the Pfizer pharmaceutical company to bring its new research facility to the Fort Trumbull area with a hoped-for economic boost from a major corporate employer. Under the plan Kelo's and others' homes would be razed to make room for Pfizer and its facilities. The homeowners filed suit, challenging New London's legal authority to take their homes. The trial court issued an injunction preventing New London from taking certain of the properties, but allowing others to be taken. The appellate court found for New London on all the claims; the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed (in a 4-3 decision); and the landowners appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed the Connecticut Supreme Court decision by a \(5-4\) vote. Ms. Kelo's home and 15 others were razed. Pfizer merged with Wyeth in 2009 and closed all company operations in New London. The Fort Trumball area has no houses, no research park, no businesses, and is now an undeveloped land. However, following Hurricane Irene, officials from the city of New London announced that the citizens of their fair city could dump their branches and fallen trees at the site where Ms. Kelo's home once sat. In short, the Fort Trumball area is now a landfill. Journalist Jeff Benedict, whose book Little Pink Houses documents the story of Ms. Kelo and her neighbors and the failed project, spoke at a dinner honoring the members of the Connecticut Supreme Court. Ms. Kelo was in the audience along with the justices who decided her case. Mr. Benedict told the story of the failed city project and the impact on Ms. Kelo and others. Afterward, Justice Richard Palmer thanked Mr. Benedict for telling the story and then apologized to Ms. Kelo for what happened to her. Ms. Kelo cried because she said it was the first time in the 12-year-battle that anyone had offered an apology.......................

 Discussion Questions

 1. What do the incentives do, and how are they accomplished?
2. What are the rights of the parties if the company pulls out after receiving government benefits or tax breaks?
3. Apart from the legal rights here, are there any "moral qualms" about accepting and/or promising benefits for corporations in exchange for government benefits?
4. List the stakeholders and discuss the impact on them when a corporation reneges on a mutual development promise.