Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

no_hypocrisy

(51,729 posts)
4. This proposed taking is incongruent with the USSC decision
Wed May 14, 2025, 05:38 AM
May 14

of Kelo v. City of New London.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use". The court held that if a legislative body has found that an economic project will create new jobs, increase tax and other city revenues, and revitalize a depressed urban area (even if that area is not blighted), then the project serves a public purpose, which qualifies as a public use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Christ Church: https://www.christchurchtomsriver.org/

Toms River Council is blowing right past the status of the property being blighted and the public can only benefit from redevelopment.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith»Stop the Township of Toms...»Reply #4