The area they want to build all these new structures is where the Undersea Warfare Center of the Navy was. When the Navy moved it took 1,400 jobs with it. The unemployment rate of the city only got worse. This has been a rough neighborhood for quite some time. Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company built a $350 million research center, which created 1,400 job opportunities. Since then the government has created parks and opened up the river fort access to the public. Furthermore, the city wants to build new homes for professionals, office buildings and a hotel.
They want space to build these luxurious homes for the professional employees of Pfizer. The houses that sit above the Thames River in front of Fort Trumbull is the area they want to use to build all these new structures. Though many people have left their houses, there are still a few that remain in their homes in this area. The city is offering a fair price for their homes but the residents do not want the money, they just want to keep their homes that they worked very hard to get. The Supreme Court upheld the city’s condemnation right; the homeowners had to forcefully sell their homes.
It ruled that required purchase to foster economic development falls under public use and is constitutionally permissible. By making this decision the Supreme Court drives the argument over eminent domain back to the states and local communities. Eminent domain has been used correctly to rebuild decayed urban areas or start economic growth; conflict now is rising with political and legal battles, there are many states that are taking advantage of it. In 2009 Pfizer closed its New London location and transferred its 1,400 employees to a campus the company owns in Groton, Connecticut.
I enjoyed this article because it opened my eyes to what people are experiencing around the country with Eminent Domain. I don’t think New London treated their residents fairly by authorizing these structures built over their homes. Towns such as New London and others are not pursuing their decisions wisely as to their beneficial and progressive social policies. I think that they are socially harming and being biased against ordinary working people and small business owners. I do not think that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of the government.
I do not think that the government should have the right to take away your property. It takes someone about thirty years to pay off a home and finally be able to call it their property and not the banks. I think that after thirty years of slaving away making payments and paying interest rates, the government should not be able to just come in and take your property, it is not morally correct. Now on the other hand, if the property is abandoned then yes, the government should be able to obtain it for public use. I do not think its right for the government to forcefully vacate someone from his or her home to use it publicly.