Do you see the difference between the government taking property for public good
.. Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005).
What do you think? Do you see the difference between the government taking property for public good as opposed to forcing a land sale to allow another private property owner to take the property? Does such a notion offend the principles of the 5th Amendment? What do you think of the Justices’ dissent that the majority sided with those having a “disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms”?
Post your thought here. Remember to read and respond to at least two other student comments.
………………..Answer preview………………………..All land belongs to the government. Individuals purchase it under lease agreement. Thus, for the purpose of developments, I believe the government can repossess the land and compensate the affected individuals. If the government thinks that the land will be more beneficial to the public if it is developed by a private developer, then I think it is ok for it to repossess it back. I also do not think this offends the 5th Amendment because as stated above the land belongs to the government. We live on in under a lease agreement……………………………..
APA
155 words
Get instant access to the full solution from yourhomeworksolutions by clicking the purchase button below