Justice Stevens’ majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) held the government’s public use determination isoff-limits if thedetermination was the result of a “comprehensive plan,” regardless ofwhether than plan has any realistic chance of actually beingaccomplished. Thus, property owners can be forcibly dispossessed of their homes based merely on the government’s “belief” and “hope” a planwill succeed:
TheCity has carefully formulatedan economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciablebenefits to the community, including–but by no means limited to–newjobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urbanplanning and development,the City is endeavoring to coordinate a variety of commercial,residential, and recreational uses of land, with the hope that theywill form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate thisplan, the City has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizesthe use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given thecomprehensive character of the plan,the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limitedscope of our review, it is appropriate for us, as it was in Berman,to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemealbasis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that planunquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged heresatisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.
For a reality check, see Professor Gideon Kanner’s guest column in the National Journal: “The New London Disaster: Why the Supreme Court’s ‘Kelo’ Decision Was A Waste.” An excerpt:
The city’s contention was characterized by the Connecticut SupremeCourt, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, as an effort “projected tocreate in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, andto revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtownand waterfront areas.” New London’s lawyer took the position in oralargument that even if the city were to take a Motel 6 to replace itwith a Ritz Carlton in order to generate higher tax revenues, thatwould be a permissible “public use.” The court’s majority agreed, thusdeferring entirely to the judgment of municipal redevelopment agencyfunctionaries, and de facto allowing them to pass judgment on theconstitutionality of their own handiwork. Thus, it was the perceivedquality of the town’s redevelopment plans that carried the day.
But as the Kelo case wended its way through the courts, thecity’s vaunted plans began unraveling. By the time oral arguments wereheard by the Supreme Court in April 2005, the proposed five-star hotelthat would cater to Pfizer’s conjectured upscale guests was scrubbed.It went downhill from there. Even though the redevelopment project wasbegun in 2000, and the court ruled in favor of the town in 2005,nothing has been done on the ground after the taken neighborhood wasrazed, except for an attempt to create a Coast Guard museum, which ranout of funds and had to be abandoned. By degrees, the 90-acre tract ofwaterfront land that comprised the redevelopment area became atrash-strewn, weed-infested urban wasteland. The latest dispatch fromNew London’s newspaper, The Day, reported that the site is becoming a favorite of birds and bird watchers.
Recall that at one point, one of the players on the City’s side actually blamed the objecting property owners for killing the project, and as noted in Professor Kanner’s column, the site is reverting to its natural state.