Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Write 1 page with APA style on Law HW week 4 TL. Business Law Kelo v. of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) Issue: Whether the may seize the property under its powers of eminent domain or isthis seizure
Write 1 page with APA style on Law HW week 4 TL. Business Law Kelo v. of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) Issue: Whether the may seize the property under its powers of eminent domain or isthis seizure an overreach of Urbanias authority? . If you say that it is unconstitutional for the city to take the property, what circumstances would be necessary to make it constitutional? . If you say that the seizure is constitutional, explain your decision. .
Decision:
The city may seize the property under its powers of eminent domain. There are two burdens that the city has to meet to qualify for eminent domain: - (1) that the takings of the particular properties at issue were “reasonably necessary” to achieve the City’s intended public use and (2) that the takings were for “reasonably foreseeable needs.” . Milo’s Crossing is an economically depressed neighborhood. The awareness of the depressed economic condition and the evidence collaborating this concern constitutes that it is “reasonably necessary” to have a redevelopment plan to help improve the economic condition.
Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the redevelopment plans are qualified as permissible “public use” due to the benefits enjoyed from the economic growth. It is ruled that use of eminent domain for economic development will not violate public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions if the economic project creates new jobs, increases tax revenue and revitalizes a depressed urban area. The seizure of the properties promises 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million tax revenues per year thus making the taking of the land valid and constitutional.
The decision of the interpretation of “public use” has also been interpreted by the Supreme Court as “public purpose” in the case of Midkiff (467 U.S. 229) and other cases involving eminent domain.
