After decades of economic decline, city officials in New London targeted the city for economic revitalization. To this end, New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit entity established some years earlier to assist the city in planning economic development, was reactivated. A pharmaceutical company, Pfizer Inc., then announced that it would build a $300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to a riverfront area particularly targeted for economic revitalization. Local planners intended the development plan to capitalize on the arrival of the Pfizer facility and the new commerce it was expected to attract. 

In addition to creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and helping to build momentum for the revitalization of downtown New London, the plan was also designed to make the city more attractive and to create leisure and recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park. The city council also authorized the NLDC to purchase property or to acquire property by exercising eminent domain in the city’s name. When negotiations to purchase the home of Susette Kelo failed, the NLDC initiated condemnation proceedings, attempting to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the property in exchange for just compensation. Kelo sued, claiming that the taking of her property would violate the “public use” restriction in the Fifth Amendment. Does the city’s decision to take property for the purpose of economic development satisfy the “public use” requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Explain.