Analysis of Mr JaeSang Park vs City of Savannah
The City Council is losing significant revenue collections, crime has gone high, the decline in the waterfront area is more real, and the economy is dwindling. As a result, the council is deciding on how to react to these complaints. In doing this, the Council will use Measure A, that seeks to revitalize the economy on the waterfront area where the Marina sits. It also relies on the amended Referendum 3 that aims at limiting the government’s eminent domain power by restricting the permissible interpretations of the public use requirement for the eminent domain (Dyson 1-2). The council seeks to take over the waterfront area and compensate the owners like Mr. Park. Henceforth, the city plans to transfer the land to public use where it hopes to derive jobs, revenues, and minimize noise on Elm Street. The City also relies on Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 case studies (2005) to succeed in its quest. Mr. Park’s house, the marina is on that street and the council is bound to make it a stadium. Hence, Mr. Park is seeking legal advice on how to stop the council from taking his waterfront home. In 2000, New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain powers to acquire private property for purposes of selling it for private use with an aim of boosting the city’s economy. In doing this, New London sought to create more than 1000 jobs, revitalize the economy, and increase tax revenues. As such, aggrieved owners took the matter to court arguing that the seized property was not for public use and the Fifth Amendment Takings limits the government from seizing private property for public use without just compensation. The legal question in this question was whether the city’s seizure and selling of the reference property are of public use according to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.