Analysis of Mr. Jae-Sang Park vs. City of Savannah - Case Study Example

Mr. Jae-Sang Park vs. of Savannah, Georgia Facts The facts of this case are that Mr. Park has already paid the City Council the increased slip fees. He has however been playing loud pop music on his houseboat up to late in the night. He lately bought and stays briefly on another house, Marina, which is direct on the waterfront on Elm Street. Mr. Park is now playing loud music both in the waterfront on Elm Street and houseboat, Gangnam Style. His friends who party at his house are adversely polluting the Elm Street. As a result, his neighbors are complaining of his behavior and consequently cancelled their slip lease agreements with the City. Due to this, the City Council is losing significant revenue collections, crime has gone high, the decline in the waterfront area is more real, and the economy is dwindling. As a result, the council is deciding on how to react on these complaints. In doing this, the Council will use the Measure A, that seeks to revitalize the economy on the waterfront area where the Marina sits. It also relies on the amended Referendum 3 that aims at limiting the government’s eminent domain power by restricting the permissible interpretations of the “public use” requirement for eminent domain (Dyson 1-2). The council seeks to take over the waterfront area and compensate the owners like Mr. Park. Henceforth, the city plans to transfer the land to public use where it hopes to derive jobs, revenues, and minimize noise on Elm Street. The City also relies on Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 case studies (2005) to succeed in its quest. Mr. Park’s house, marina is on that street and the council is bound to make it a stadium. Hence, Mr. Park is seeking legal advice on how to stop the council from taking his waterfront home. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 In 2000, New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain powers to acquire private property for purposes of selling it for private use with an aim of boosting the city’s economy. In doing this, New London sought to create more than 1000 jobs, revitalize the economy, and increase tax revenues. As such, aggrieved owners took the matter to court arguing that the seized property was not for public use and the Fifth Amendment Takings limits the government from seizing private property for public use without just compensation. The legal question in this question was whether the city’s seizure and selling of the reference property is of “public use” according to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In a majority ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London qualifying the city’s seizure and sale of private property for private development as "public use" according to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They argued that the city did not have targeted private developers but were following a given economic development plan thus qualifying for ‘public use’ though the land destined to be public (National Conference of State Legislatures Web). The Strengths and Weaknesses of Mr. Park’s Case Mr. Park’s case has some strong points in that he is already compliant to the City Council the increased slip fees and settled the Gangnam Style dispute. This is strength in that he is already contributing to the revitalization of the economy the City Council seeks to revamp after taking the water front area. Nevertheless, there is a weakness in Mr. Park’s case in that his acts of air pollution and land pollution by his friends after their parties, motivates the City council to act after a public outcry and sabotage of City Council’s revenue collection Mr. Parks’ neighbors cancelled their slip lease agreements with the City. In addition, the City Council has huge legal backup from the enacted Measure A and promises compensation for the seized property. More so, Mr. Park’s house stands on a land proposed for public use, a stadium. The Best Arguments He Could Make However, Mr. Park can make the argument that he is currently contributing to economy revitalization and that the amended Referendum 3 limits the government from exercising government’s eminent domain power where in this case the proposed stadium is only a permissible interpretation of ‘public use.’ Indeed, he can argue that the seized property will not be for public use as only the City’s Professional Footballers, the Savannah Spartans, will use the stadium. Hence, this is not public use but privatization. He can equally argue that loud music nuisance is not physical invasion and hence The Best Arguments the City Could Make The City Council can argue that Mr., Park’s actions, and those of his friends amount to degradation of the street and the waterfront hence the need to revitalize the neighborhood economy. Additionally, the city can argue that the intended use of the seized property is purely public as seen in Measure A and supported in on Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 case. More so, the city can claim that the compensation will serve justice to the property owners like Mr. Park and the proposed use is more beneficial than the current use where Mr. Park and others use it to pollute the air and the land. Referendum 3 limits To the City’s Plans The amendments to Referendum 3 aim at limiting the government’s eminent domain power by restricting the permissible interpretations of the “public use” requirement for eminent domain (Dyson 1-2). These amendments will significantly limit the ability of the city to execute its plan in that both parties interpret the term differently and thus the courts must consider and respect both interpretations thus jeopardizing City’s plans. This consideration may partially work against the City Council. Nevertheless, considering the weakness in MR Park’s case, the witnesses against him, and the legal backup manifested by the City Council, I do not think Mr. Park would be successful in any lawsuit that we bring on his behalf. However, to come to a more definite conclusion, we need more research on the definition and application of the term ‘Public use’ in different contexts. More so, we need to analyze more case studies on such cases and relevant interpretations of the terms ‘private’ and ‘public use’. Works Cited Dyson, Deborah. Eminent Domain: Public Use. Web 26, November 2012. < http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clssemntdom.pdf> National Conference of State Legislatures. Summary of Kelo v. New London. Web 26, November 2012. < http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/env-res/summary-of-kelo-v-new-london.aspx> Read More