Have Redevelopment Agencies Gone Too Far Using the Power of Eminent Domain? the Supreme Court May Soon Tell US (Kelo V. City of New London, And Relevant Case History‪)‬

FEW WOULD DISAGREE THAT REDEVELOPMENT--in its traditional context--can be beneficial to society. Redevelopment has been responsible for revitalizing blighted and dilapidated communities where the previous property owners were either unwilling or economically unable to improve the property on their own. But while few would deny the possible benefits of redevelopment, few would also disagree that redevelopment, with its attendant power of eminent domain, is subject to abuse. This is primarily because although the Fifth Amendment places a "public use" limitation on the power of eminent domain, the term "public use" is largely undefined and left to the determination of local governmental entities. The result is inconsistent and contradictory case law across the country, leaving property owners, practitioners and developers in a state of confusion. The United States Supreme Court may provide some much-needed guidance in this regard, as on September 28, 2004, it agreed to hear the case of Kelo v. City of New London, a case involving redevelopment and the expansive use of the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Court is expected to determine whether the Constitution allows the government to use eminent domain to take property for the purpose of economic development. This case will also provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to provide a workable definition of "public use" in the context of the Fifth Amendment.