Replies

You want a well reasoned approach bizatch? Here goes -

Facts - Large corporation invests millions of dollars in building an office building in a former blue-collar neighborhood. With little empirical support, they contend that in order to have the most efficient worker flow to their new office complex they need a four lane road. In order to build this road, they need to condemn a long established business that serves the community and provides the only 24 hour restaurant in the area. None of the workers that will work in the office building live in Jersey City. The office building is in keeping with the local urban renewal plan.

Issue - Does Public Policy favor the destruction of a well established local business, in order to render a tangential benefit to a non-resident company that prospectively might aid the local economy in the future?

Rule - The takings clause of the fifth amendment has been interprested to prohibit the taking of private property for private use even if just compensation is made. However, the supreme court has construed public use broadly, so long as the eminent domain power it rationally relarted to a conceivable public purpose. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 467 US 229 (1984). The use of eminent domain for urban renewal is seen as a public and not a private use, so long as the taking can be seen to further the communities general welfare. See Berman v. Parker, 348 US 26 (1954).

Analysis - Though the law allows the government to take land in order to benefit a private entity, such a taking must rationally related to a conceivable public purpose. Admittedly, the freere flow of workers to the new office building is a conceivable public benefit. However, such a taking must further the communitied general welfare. Here there is a legitimate and recognized benefit provided by the flamingo restaurant. The restaurant provides quality 24 hour food service for the local residential and office community, a unique service in the area. Moreover, the presence of the restaurant tends to psychologically connect the established community with the new community by providing a common meeting ground. Moreover, public policy should respect the fruits of ones labor, such as that put in by the greek owner. The interest of goldman Sachs is to aid in the flow of traffic. The cite to the possible danger to the office workers. An analysis of the cite shows that the sidewalks are over 12 in width. Moreover, there is never much vehicular traffic, as most commuters take either the subway or the light rail, which stops directly in front of the new building. The probability of danger, is quite low. There has been no reported incident of pedestrian injury in the past. The claim of inacessability is also specious. There has never been a problem with traffic to the surrounding office buildings. Given these considerations I would hold that the balance of factors is definately in favor of maintaining the current use, the Flamingo Restaurant, as such a result would further the communities general welfare.

And another thing - I HATE YUPPIES!