This Note will analyze the two opposing interests of property owners and of cities in the context of the Supreme Court's Public Use Clause jurisprudence and show that while the Court's decision in Kelo may have diminished property rights, the decision could render an overriding positive impact on combating urban sprawl. Part II defines urban sprawl and identifies some of its associated costs. Part III briefly describes Public Use Clause jurisprudence prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo. Part IV discusses the Court's opinion in Kelo and Justice Kennedy's concurrence. Part V examines the substantial criticism of Kelo and the legislative responses to the ruling. Part VI then suggests how the Court's decision in Kelo ultimately found the right balance between the competing interests of property rights protection and an urban city's ability to compete against sprawling suburbs. Finally, Part VII concludes the Note by reiterating that cities like New London and Lakewood need the power of eminent domain for their economic survival.
Note, Kelo v. City of New London: A Reduction of Property Rights but a Tool to Combat Urban Sprawl, 55 Clev. St. L. Rev. 103 (2007)