1

Have times changed, or was it the Institute for Justices media campaign and Susette Kelos defiance that changed public sentiment against eminent domain abuse and unconstitutional takings? When discussing the case of Kelo vs. The City of New London, it would be reasonable for one to wonder whether times have actually changed, or was Susette Kelos defiance and the Institute for Justices media campaign that has changed the publics opinion against eminent domain abuse and unconstitutional takings. The answer seems to be that the publics opinion on the subject was most likely changed by Ms. Kelos defiance, along with the Institute for Justices media campaign. It was not that eminent domain was not an issue before the Kelo v. City of New London case, but the media attention that was brought to the case. This media attention, brought by both Ms. Kelos defiance and the Instituted for Justice, moved the issue of eminent domain to the forefront and informed people that never even knew about the issue.

According to Amanda W. Goodin, author of, Rejecting the Return to Blight in Post-Kelo State Legislation, It is hard to say exactly why Kelo provoked such a strong
public reaction where previous takings cases did not; whatever the reasons behind the strong public opposition to Kelo, it has served as a catalyst for eminent domain reform at

2
the state level.1 Even though eminent domain was a major issue in the city of New London, it would be reasonable for some to be curious as to why on issue in a town in Connecticut could have sparked such a public opposition nationwide. Therefore, it would be reasonable for one to assume that this strong public reaction that was sparked by the Kelo v. City of New London case was provoked by both the media attention brought about by the Institute for Justice along with the defiance of Ms. Kelo.

The idea that Susette Kelos defiance and the Institute for Justices media campaign that has changed the publics opinion against eminent domain abuse and unconstitutional takings, can be supported by the fact that the case itself was based on a fifty year-old precedent regarding public use.2 This case was Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), this Court upheld a redevelopment plan targeting a blighted area of Washington, D. C., in which most of the housing for the area's 5,000 inhabitants was beyond repair. Under the plan, the area would be condemned and part of it utilized for the construction of streets, schools, and other public facilities. The remainder of the land would be leased or sold to private parties for the purpose of redevelopment, including the construction of low-cost housing.3 Another factor that supports this idea is the fact that after the Kelo v. City of New London was decided many states enacted laws, which are referred to as Post-Kelo
1

Goodin, Amanda., "Rejecting the Return to Bligh Post-Kelo State Legislation," (March 2007). 2 Bird, Robert C., "Reviving Necessity in Eminent Domain," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 33 (Winter 2010).
3

(Kelo v. City of New London 2005)

3 laws. These laws increased the regulation of eminent domain takings in some way, shape or form. An article reports that, as of January 2008 there were thirty-five state legislatures that had enacted post-Kelo laws. 4 This furthermore proves that even though eminent domain and public use were issues in the past, it was the Kelo v. City of New London case that brought the publics attention to the issue. Had it not been for the media coverage and Ms. Kelos defiance, many people still may not have known what the horrible effects of eminent domain are, unless they affected them in some way.

When exploring whether or not times have actually changed, it is important to look closely at whether there has actually been a change in the way that eminent domain is used in this country. According to Robert Bird in his article Reviving Necessity in Eminent Domain, after the previously mentioned thirty-five states enacted laws that increase the regulation of eminent domain, at least sixteen of them provided property owners with very little meaningful protection from eminent domain. These laws also accomplished little considering they imposed only minor procedural burdens on redevelopment officials. Lastly, these Post-Kelo laws did nothing but reaffirm the existence of vague terms like public use. It has been said that as interest fades in the subject, the likelihood of more public use reform also disappears with it.5

In summary, when presented with the question of whether times have actually changed, or if Susette Kelos defiance and the Institute for Justices media campaign that
4 5

Bird , "Reviving Necessity in Eminent Domain," (2010) Bird , "Reviving Necessity in Eminent Domain," (2010)

4 has changed the publics opinion against eminent domain abuse and unconstitutional takings, it would be reasonable for one to arrive at the conclusion that times have not really changed. Had times actually changed there would have been noticeable and meaningful protection for the people, against the negative effects of eminent domain. Also, it is important to recognize that there were cases used in the Kelo v. City of New London case that dealt with public use. This is a significant fact in order to support the fact that eminent domain had been an issue in the past and that in this case it was the media attention and Ms. Kelos defiance that brought attention to the subject, not that times have changed.

Bibliography Bird, Robert C. "Reviving Necessity in Eminent Domain." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text) 33, no. 1 (2010). Goodin, Amanda W. "Rejecting the Returnto Blight in Post-Kelo Legislature." 2007. Kelo v. City of New London. 545 U.S. 469 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, June 23, 2005).