Book Description
"In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States made a monumental decision in Kelo v. New London (2005). The Court affirmed that interpreting economic development as being under the Public Use Clause within the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment was Constitutional. The Court upheld the notion that private property could be transferred to another private entity by the government. The backlash from this ruling was a tide of state legislature concerning eminent domain. However, this new state legislature seems to have opened up the door to use the Fifth Amendment to address this blight. There is no standard by which a community, neighborhood, or home can be labeled as "blighted"; and, thus, no standard by which to justify government intervention. In fact, the effect of these laws has resulted in the discrimination of the economically poor. Furthermore, with the existence of a relationship between lower income neighborhoods and minority communities, the net effect of these new domain standards is discrimination to the least of these. This article seeks to explore ways by which the Fifth Amendment, as defined by Kelo v. New London can be used as a tool to combat urban blight. Through the exploration of base briefs, legal articles, and literature addressing property and eminent domain, I find that government's present involvement in addressing urban blight has turned unethical. I argue that there is no way up from the rut of vague definitions and loose policies that states have found themselves in. Eminent domain is a powerful tool, but it cannot remain in the box used to combat urban blight without reform. A new definition of blight must be drafted for this to happen. This definition, paired with the Fifth Amendment, will allow urban blight to be addressed in a legal, nondiscriminatory, ethical, and effective way"--Abstract
