Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    Case Analyis 1

    Uploaded by

    Nelson Gonzalez
    1. The document discusses a case involving the city of New London, Connecticut using eminent domain to seize private property from residents to redevelop the area. While the goal was economic improvement, many residents opposed losing their homes. 2. The author argues that while upsetting residents, the city's actions were progressive and intended to address unemployment by attracting new businesses through redevelopment. 3. The author views eminent domain as justified under the utilitarian principle of benefiting the greatest number of people, which aligns with democratic ideals of governing for the public good.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Analyis 1

    Uploaded by

    Nelson Gonzalez
    79 views3 pages
    1. The document discusses a case involving the city of New London, Connecticut using eminent domain to seize private property from residents to redevelop the area. While the goal was economic improvement, many residents opposed losing their homes. 2. The author argues that while upsetting residents, the city's actions were progressive and intended to address unemployment by attracting new businesses through redevelopment. 3. The author views eminent domain as justified under the utilitarian principle of benefiting the greatest number of people, which aligns with democratic ideals of governing for the public good.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The document discusses a case involving the city of New London, Connecticut using eminent domain to seize private property from residents to redevelop the area. While the goal was economic improvement, many residents opposed losing their homes. 2. The author argues that while upsetting residents, the city's actions were progressive and intended to address unemployment by attracting new businesses through redevelopment. 3. The author views eminent domain as justified under the utilitarian principle of benefiting the greatest number of people, which aligns with democratic ideals of governing for the public good.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    79 views3 pages

    Case Analyis 1

    Uploaded by

    Nelson Gonzalez
    1. The document discusses a case involving the city of New London, Connecticut using eminent domain to seize private property from residents to redevelop the area. While the goal was economic improvement, many residents opposed losing their homes. 2. The author argues that while upsetting residents, the city's actions were progressive and intended to address unemployment by attracting new businesses through redevelopment. 3. The author views eminent domain as justified under the utilitarian principle of benefiting the greatest number of people, which aligns with democratic ideals of governing for the public good.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Nelson Gonzalez Case analysis 1

    Ethics and Social Responsibility


    Professor Dan Hanson

    Case 3.1, “Eminent Domain”, detailed the rising tensions of the people of New London

    and their government. The City of New London has begun utilized their power Eminent Domain-

    defined as “the ancient right of the government to take property from an individual without

    consent for the common good”- to evict people from their homes and clear their homes so that

    new developments may be put in place. While the goal for Eminent Domain is for the betterment

    of the people, many residents in New London are arguing against the way the city is using this

    right. Instead of creating public works such as parks, liberties, or even roads; the government is

    giving the land to developers so that they may build private businesses’ in those locations such as

    hotels or entertainment centers.

    1. While I understand the frustration the Kelo family has had with the change, having to

    watch long time neighbors leave their homes one by one and seeing as their entire

    neighborhood’s landscape change, I strongly believe the City was in the right with their tactics.

    The purpose of Eminent Domain is for the good of the public, the city would be doing this with

    the best intentions in mind. The state of Connecticut had already designated the city as blighted,

    if they decided to do nothing, the state of the city might have deteriorated any more. My

    rationale is that, had the choice not to use eminent domain, the City of New London would have

    deteriorated to a city that Kelo and her neighbors would have felt unsafe to live in.

    2. The actions of the town were progressive and with good intentions. New London did not

    choose this choice without looking at the tradeoffs. The article clearly states that the City of New

    London has had massive unemployment issues, but things only began to turn around after the

    arrival of hotels and office buildings starts allowed the town to grow and thrive.
    Nelson Gonzalez Case analysis 1
    Ethics and Social Responsibility
    Professor Dan Hanson

    The Fort Trumbull area, the area they are tearing down, is ancient and with a lot of old homes.

    They are looking at the numbers, and the number of people and small businesses they might

    displace pales in comparison to the new jobs and people that would come into the town when

    they start building more hotels, restaurants, stores, ext.

    3. The goal of eminent domain and the idea around it is a great example of a utilitarianism

    idea, utilitarianism being the ethical practice of doing actions because they are to the benefit of

    the most amount of people. The United States government is a democratic nation-build under the

    ideas that the will of the people is to be represented and laws are made for the benefits of the

    people. I believe that eminent domain is a morally justifiable action and that its philosophy of

    only taking private land when it is for the good of the public makes it a law that matches the

    ideals of the nation that uses it, the U.S. It is both morally justifiable but also patriotic practice is

    used for when the government wants to do good for its people.

    4. Compensation, or rather, just compensation, should be the end-all for matters of unfair

    treatment that the other side feels as if they have been given. But the matter of just compensation

    is difficult to quantify, while you may be able to compensate them for the cost of the house, that

    does not make it automatically a “just compensation.” It is difficult to quantify the memories and

    history people have regarding their homes so just compensating them for the value of their house

    by itself may not be proper compensation. In this case, a truly just compensation would never

    result in the other party to deny the offer. If the other party in a settlement decides to refuse

    compensation, that means that the compensation was not “just” to begin with.
    Nelson Gonzalez Case analysis 1
    Ethics and Social Responsibility
    Professor Dan Hanson

    5. There will always be a risk that someone will be the last obstacle for a public works

    project to fully go underway. This could cause a lot of issues with the public as they do not want

    to wait on this last person, but I do not feel as if we should just resort to eviction without doing

    our due diligence first. We should do some steps to further show this person that we are trying to

    work with them in this situation; we could send his peers who to compel him to leave for the

    good of his fellow man, have a formal hearing in the matter were he might give his 2-cents, or

    even offer him higher than normal compensation to show him we mean it. Sadly, if there are no

    other options, we have no choice but to evict him even if he does not take the compensation; the

    simple matter is, we have already evicted everyone else from their homes, there is no fairness if

    we decide to cancel the project because of one person, this would mean those people left their

    homes for nothing.

    6. Under the libertarian way of viewing things, sadly the matters of government

    utilitarianism through eminent domain do not hold water. Libertarians reject such notions as the

    right to have property is a moral right, and taking someone’s homes, no matter the reason would

    be viewed as immoral and without justification.

    Reflection: I had personally taken the side of the City throughout this entire article, although I

    understood the opposing party was coming, I personally follow a utilitarian moral code that was

    reinforced due to this current climate. I did not view the Kelo as selfish, but the reasoning of the

    city was more justifiable in my eyes. The ending of the story did leave in a rather sour note, as I

    feel as if they are implying that all of this was for nothing since the 2007 financial crisis would

    have caused the town to end in the same road, no matter who won, which I feel diminishes the

    struggle in the people of this story.

    You might also like