Autorentext

Francine S. Romero is professor of public administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

Klappentext

The dramatic story of how a small neighborhood in Connecticut became the site and symbol of a political conflict over the use of eminent domain, mobilizing a national property rights movement.

In 2000, Susette Kelo and other residents of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood sued the city of New London, Connecticut. Two years earlier, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer had built a facility adjacent to this area. Shortly thereafter, the city empowered the privately owned New London Development Corporation to use the power of eminent domain to implement a “comprehensive redevelopment plan” for the neighborhood. While the plaintiffs argued that economic development did not qualify as a valid “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court decided in a controversial 2005 decision that the potential economic benefits of the plan justified the condemnation of private property as long as appropriate compensation was paid.

The Kelo decision implied that any town could transfer property to private developers on the grounds of possible future tax revenue and job creation, so long as that action was included in an economic development plan. The outrage over the decision unleashed a near-unanimous backlash, even resulting in an executive order from President George W. Bush instructing the federal government to limit the use of eminent domain. Numerous states passed ballot initiatives and legislation restricting eminent domain in the wake of the Kelo case. Despite this outcry, urban planners and others defended it as a necessary application of existing precedent that allowed cities flexibility to combat economic downturns. Lead plaintiff Susette Kelo and her pink house became a symbol of a growing national property rights movement and a deepening conflict between public officials and property owners, between large corporations and local communities. Perhaps most disastrously, after bulldozing the neighborhood the developer was unable to secure the necessary financing and abandoned the project, leaving empty lots where the plaintiffs’ properties once stood. It would be many years before a feasible plan led to actual new construction and improvements.

Not for Sale recounts this iconic episode in recent legal history, giving full attention to both the human and legal elements of the story and offering a balanced consideration of each. The story remains as relevant as ever, especially since the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to reconsider its decision, most recently in Bowers Development, LLC v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (2025).