Facts of the Case
In this case, SUSETTE KELO, ET AL., AND PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, a number of facts emerged from the arguments of both parties. First, the City had an integrated plan that was designed to develop and revitalize the ailing economy of the City of New London. The accused, in this case, the City of New London initially approved the plan, a situation that would see the willing buyers purchase some of the properties, which the defendant had earmarked, specifically for this particular project. The other fact is that some of the properties were actually sold, but there are others who petitioned the sale on grounds of inter alia, arguing that it will contravene the provision of “public use”. Basically, the defendants were of the view that private ownership of the properties will restrict their use to many people, thus declined to sell their properties. The other fact is that the petitioners were granted a permanent injunction to bar the potential buyers from taking the properties as the trial proceeded.
Considering the cases such as Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, the Connecticut Supreme Court, rued in part and later reversed in part, the cases upholding all of the proposed takings. The ruling in these cases could be applied to the one involving SUSETTE KELO, ET AL., AND PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW LONDON to bar the potential buyers from taking some of the remaining properties. This was in the interest of the public that could have been undermined, if the takeover could have been carried out as planned by the New city of New London.
According to the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus, in the case between SUSETTE KELO, ET AL., AND PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, it states that
“The city’s determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community include, but are not limited to new jobs and increased tax revenue”.
The accused was justifying its intention to sell out the properties to potential buyers that it could revitalize its economy that was in the verge of collapse. Indeed, urban planning and subsequent development could necessitate the possession of some properties, while demolishing others to ensure that the plans are executed appropriately. Although the New City of London was acting in its capacity to improve the economic status of the town, the petitioners who were aggrieved argued from the perspective of protecting the rights of the public. The reason was that the public might not benefit if such properties were sold off to private investors.
When delivering a judgment, Justice Stephen of the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the accused, arguing that the proposed project was an economic stimulus aimed at creating more than 1,000 jobs in the city. He also indicated that it would increase tax and promote growth in the city to enable the authority collect more revenue. This will enable the New City of London to revitalize its ailing economy and that of the surrounding areas. Therefore, he argued that the decision would enhance the living condition of the locals, and it was justifiable.
In a dissenting opinion, three justices understood that the exercise was meant for economic development, but found the takings to be unconstitutional. They argued that the City did not present “clear and convincing evidence that the economic benefits of the plan would in fact come to pass.” This made the exercise unjustifiable.
National Policy Matters
How Public Policy is Formed in the American’s System of Sovernment
In formulating a public policy in the United States, the following process is duly followed, taking inflation as an example. First, economists, interest groups and monetary policy formulators have to assess the causes of inflation keenly to avoid the future occurrence of the phenomenon. This will enable the economists to avoid the resulting devastating economic effects of inflation. Second, the issues are deliberated by employing various economic theories. Notably, economic theorists have developed theories around the prevailing economic circumstances during the period of inflation to establish relational understanding between the various causes of inflation and the increasing rates of inflation, and of importance about these theories is the relationship between the foreign exchange rates and the prevailing inflationary conditions. The relationship between these two parameters has elicited various studies and theories ranging from the accountants’ perspective to the economic inflation targeting theorizations, and used to formulate a different policy that intends to assist the largest number of people. The diversity in approach between the economists and the other proponents of this relationship has propelled the study to establish the existence of the inflation promoting agents in foreign exchange rate determination as described in the prior studies in this field.
How is the Problem Identified
Various countries have developed monetary policies, which have become subjects of analysis by various economic researchers. In formulating a public policy in the United States of America, the process of identifying a problem is very important. For example, when talking about economic policy in the US, identification of the problem starts by determining its origin. According to Rogibon and Edward, the origin of inflation dates back to the economic policies that business and political leaders have employed in tackling socio-economic elements of the society. By employing the example of inflation in the US Rogibon and Edward, indicated that the historical origin of the contemporary inflation influence in the county could be traced back the early 1900 economic policies, which economic leaders utilized when the revenue that accrued to the government from the non-renewable natural resources such as oil grew steeply. The researchers also indicated that following the increasing public expenditure that resulted from the increasing oil revenues, the aggregate demand of the country expanded rapidly. The country’s supply of domestic output remained inelastic. This enabled the introduction of inflation following the skyrocketing commodity prices. As a result, there was a rapid growth in the money supply since the government authorized the monetization of the revenues from the oil sales. The consideration made to the above aspects play a critical role when identifying the problem to be tackled.
Who is responsible for determining solutions or setting the public policy agenda?
The bodies responsible for determining solutions to various problems that the US faces is the lower chamber of parliament (The House of Representatives), economists, courts, and interest groups, under the presidency. In essence, the bodies mentioned are among the policy making organs in the country that sets the public policy agenda. They coordinate to deliberate on the problems and formulate workable policies. The proposed policy is presented as a bill containing the draft rules before congress that deliberates on it. If it is satisfactory, it could be adopted. Sometimes, the court could intervene to pass a given legislation, making it a law or public policy. This example is a clear indication that the determining solutions or setting the public policy agenda, when making a public policy is a not done by a single institution. All parties mentioned are important in terms of their input. This is to provide checks and balances for any excesses, which may arise from a solitary institution.