This dilemma brings the Kelo case to the forefront of public policy debate.

The Kelo case involved "New London, a city in Connecticut, using its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues" Oyez.org. 2005). The plaintiffs contended that the takings by the city were not designed for public use but rather private gain. In the Supreme Court's decision the majority answered that the taking was for economic development which would benefit the community as a whole and as such "the Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose'" (Oyez.org. 2005). The decision significantly broadens the interpretation of what public officials can designate public use and calls into question to what extent private properties can be taken for "just compensation."...
[ View Full Essay]