Nelson Gonzalez Case analysis 1

Ethics and Social Responsibility

Professor Dan Hanson

Case 3.1, “Eminent Domain”, detailed the rising tensions of the people of New London

and their government. The City of New London has begun utilized their power Eminent Domain-

defined as “the ancient right of the government to take property from an individual without

consent for the common good”- to evict people from their homes and clear their homes so that

new developments may be put in place. While the goal for Eminent Domain is for the betterment

of the people, many residents in New London are arguing against the way the city is using this

right. Instead of creating public works such as parks, liberties, or even roads; the government is

giving the land to developers so that they may build private businesses’ in those locations such as

hotels or entertainment centers.

1. While I understand the frustration the Kelo family has had with the change, having to

watch long time neighbors leave their homes one by one and seeing as their entire

neighborhood’s landscape change, I strongly believe the City was in the right with their tactics.

The purpose of Eminent Domain is for the good of the public, the city would be doing this with

the best intentions in mind. The state of Connecticut had already designated the city as blighted,

if they decided to do nothing, the state of the city might have deteriorated any more. My

rationale is that, had the choice not to use eminent domain, the City of New London would have

deteriorated to a city that Kelo and her neighbors would have felt unsafe to live in.

2. The actions of the town were progressive and with good intentions. New London did not

choose this choice without looking at the tradeoffs. The article clearly states that the City of New

London has had massive unemployment issues, but things only began to turn around after the

arrival of hotels and office buildings starts allowed the town to grow and thrive.
Nelson Gonzalez Case analysis 1
Ethics and Social Responsibility
Professor Dan Hanson

The Fort Trumbull area, the area they are tearing down, is ancient and with a lot of old homes.

They are looking at the numbers, and the number of people and small businesses they might

displace pales in comparison to the new jobs and people that would come into the town when

they start building more hotels, restaurants, stores, ext.

3. The goal of eminent domain and the idea around it is a great example of a utilitarianism

idea, utilitarianism being the ethical practice of doing actions because they are to the benefit of

the most amount of people. The United States government is a democratic nation-build under the

ideas that the will of the people is to be represented and laws are made for the benefits of the

people. I believe that eminent domain is a morally justifiable action and that its philosophy of

only taking private land when it is for the good of the public makes it a law that matches the

ideals of the nation that uses it, the U.S. It is both morally justifiable but also patriotic practice is

used for when the government wants to do good for its people.

4. Compensation, or rather, just compensation, should be the end-all for matters of unfair

treatment that the other side feels as if they have been given. But the matter of just compensation

is difficult to quantify, while you may be able to compensate them for the cost of the house, that

does not make it automatically a “just compensation.” It is difficult to quantify the memories and

history people have regarding their homes so just compensating them for the value of their house

by itself may not be proper compensation. In this case, a truly just compensation would never

result in the other party to deny the offer. If the other party in a settlement decides to refuse

compensation, that means that the compensation was not “just” to begin with.
Nelson Gonzalez Case analysis 1
Ethics and Social Responsibility
Professor Dan Hanson

5. There will always be a risk that someone will be the last obstacle for a public works

project to fully go underway. This could cause a lot of issues with the public as they do not want

to wait on this last person, but I do not feel as if we should just resort to eviction without doing

our due diligence first. We should do some steps to further show this person that we are trying to

work with them in this situation; we could send his peers who to compel him to leave for the

good of his fellow man, have a formal hearing in the matter were he might give his 2-cents, or

even offer him higher than normal compensation to show him we mean it. Sadly, if there are no

other options, we have no choice but to evict him even if he does not take the compensation; the

simple matter is, we have already evicted everyone else from their homes, there is no fairness if

we decide to cancel the project because of one person, this would mean those people left their

homes for nothing.

6. Under the libertarian way of viewing things, sadly the matters of government

utilitarianism through eminent domain do not hold water. Libertarians reject such notions as the

right to have property is a moral right, and taking someone’s homes, no matter the reason would

be viewed as immoral and without justification.

Reflection: I had personally taken the side of the City throughout this entire article, although I

understood the opposing party was coming, I personally follow a utilitarian moral code that was

reinforced due to this current climate. I did not view the Kelo as selfish, but the reasoning of the

city was more justifiable in my eyes. The ending of the story did leave in a rather sour note, as I

feel as if they are implying that all of this was for nothing since the 2007 financial crisis would

have caused the town to end in the same road, no matter who won, which I feel diminishes the

struggle in the people of this story.