1. Is New London treating Susette Kelo and her neighbors fairly? Assuming that the
proposed development will help to revitalize New London, is it just for the city to
appropriate private property around Fort Trumbull?
We think that New London is treating them unfairly. First, the government has a right to
use this power only for build up common goods, but New London doesn’t use these place
for communities common goods as well as only do it for its revitalization. However on
another hand is idea that the proposed development would hope to attract new
development, which would help revitalize the community and bring in tax revenue. It is a
great opportunity but it should be done in more affordable for citizens way. Second,
Susette Kelo and her neighbors don`t wasn’t to leave their home with the so-called “just
compensation”. This compensation costs nothing in comparison to the value that this place
has for all members of the community. They used to live here for many years, and all their
memories and things they are putting heart to are here. All of the mentioned above have
not any monetary value for people that associated themselves with its property. If the
proposed development helps to revitalize New London, we think it is still not just for the
city to allow private property if the owners of the assets regret with that, and it is illegal
under the Eminent Domain right since one private property replaces for another one. For
our suggestion, the corruption is a point that we should concern in this case. Because the
relevant facts showed that there is clearly monetary interesting from New London and
government.
2. Do you believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government?
Explain why or why not.
We think that it usually depends on the situation if eminent domain is a morally legitimate right