Land Assemblage the Discussion of

Land Assemblage The discussion of land assemblage and its connectivity to urban renewal must focus on economic issues as well as those of eminent domain. Of particular interest in this regard is the decision in Kelo v. City of New London, a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court "held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause" (Oyez.org. 2005).

The decision highlights the significant differences inherent in the development of developed land as opposed to undeveloped tracts. Private developers who invest their own capital in redevelopment projects are not the focus of questions on eminent domain as it relates to urban renewal projects; rather significant policy issues arise when government utilizes its taking power for assemblage purposes designed to invigorate and revive blighted communities.

Land assemblage at its most basic level is "the combining of two or more parcels, usually but not necessarily contiguous, into one ownership or use; the process that creates plottage value" (Parli, R. 2005). Local governments for reasons of urban renewal are often forced to use their eminent domain power to take property from private individuals and develop it with the intent of reducing "blight" in the community.

The question of what defines "blight" is not a topic for this discussion however, its traditional and historic roots are in the redevelopment of areas which have "obsolescence, dilapidation, or deleterious land uses" (Gordon, C. 2004). The logic of using eminent domain and public money for the purposes of strengthening an economically blighted area is straightforward when there is a public use of the assemblage property, however; the issue becomes more complex when the power of eminent domain is used to transfer private property from one group to another.

This dilemma brings the Kelo case to the forefront of public policy debate. The Kelo case involved "New London, a city in Connecticut, using its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues" Oyez.org. 2005). The plaintiffs contended that the takings by the city were not designed for public use but rather private gain.

In the Supreme Court's decision the majority answered that the taking was for economic development which would benefit the community as a whole and as such "the Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose'" (Oyez.org. 2005).

The decision significantly broadens the interpretation of what public officials can designate public use and calls into question to what extent private properties can be taken for "just compensation." The fact that urban renewal projects require significant public investment and tax dollars.