Answer:
The Kelo case proved to be a revelation for many New Londoners about their property rights. Small business owners like me have to be especially careful to avoid falling under the radar of government development projects.
Until now, I was under the impression that eminent domain gave the government the right to take private property as long as it was for public use. My assumption included that public use defined anything that the public could literally use. Apparently, the court went with a broader interpretation of public use under which “a taking is constitutional if it serves a public purpose” (Kelo v. City of New London).
This interpretation means public use includes anything that is deemed as fit for public purpose, even though I or most citizens may not be able to directly use it. This raises the concern of what all could fall under public use. I trust that the government won’t go on seizing private properties for its unrestrained use. However, the Kelo case still proves to be a matter of concern for me.
Although the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution provides a certain safeguard, the wider interpretation of public use makes it easier for businesses like mine to lose ownership of their property to the government.
Explanation:
