Question

In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case in which landowners challenged the power of a city in Connecticut to take their property for redevelopment. The redevelopment plan did not contemplate that all of the land would be open to the public. Parts would be privately developed. The plaintiffs alleged that the taking was unconstitutional because it was not for a public purpose. The Supreme Court rejected this claim. Use economic analysis to argue for or against the view that such a mixed development plan should be regarded as serving a public purpose.

Answer 1

We are not against such a policy. The reason is it is true that govt should have power to take land for development purposes. E. G govt should be able to take land for roads, offices, industries etc. All these steps led to the development of the community and nation. They have positive externalities and they help in directly productivity activities in general. Hardly anyone will willingly give his land for such purpose. An interesting case can be the Indian right to property act which was fundamental right. It created too much hurdles for taking land for development of roads, industries etc. There was constant confrontation between Indian supreme court and govt. Ultimately this fundamental right was taken away.

While parts of land would be privately developed but it doesn't rule away positive externalities that such project develop for public in general.Beclause of these reason we agree with supreme courts decision.