LITTLE PINK HOUSE REVIEW
Oliver Gomez Manon, UP865, Spring 2023
OVERVIEW
Li=le Pink House is a 2017 film based on the true story of a landmark Supreme Court case involving eminent domain and property rights. The movie portrays the struggles of homeowners in New London, ConnecPcut, who were faced with the possibility of losing their homes to a development project. This review details the challenges faced by New London, the perspecPves of individual property owners, the goals of City officials, the legal arguments made by the PlainPffs, and recommendaPons for other ciPes trying to accomplish similar goals using eminent domain.
CHALLENGES FACED BY NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT IN THE LATE 1990S
New London, like many other American ciPes, faced significant economic challenges in the late 1990s due to the decline of its manufacturing industry. The city had high unemployment rates and a shrinking tax base, which made it difficult to fund necessary infrastructure improvements. To revitalize the city, local officials devised a plan to redevelop the Fort Trumbull area. The plan involved using eminent domain to acquire private property to construct a research facility for the pharmaceuPcal company Pfizer. However, this plan was met with significant opposiPon from homeowners who did not want to sell their properPes.
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS’ PERSPECTIVE ON KEEPING THEIR PROPERTY
The film depicts the emoPonal struggle of Suze=e Kelo and her neighbors as they fought to keep their homes. The homeowners believed that their properPes were being taken for private gain, rather than for public use, which they argued violated the FiZh Amendment to the US ConsPtuPon. They also believed that their homes were part of the fabric of the community and that their removal would harm the social cohesion of the area. For many of the homeowners, their homes were not just pieces of property, but places of emoPonal significance and personal investment.
GOALS OF CITY OFFICIALS REGARDING THE PROJECT AND WHY WERE LOCAL OFFICIALS SURPRISED AT THE OPPOSITION
The city officials believed that the development project would create jobs, increase tax revenue, and promote economic growth in New London. They were surprised at the opposiPon from the homeowners because they believed that the public benefits of the project outweighed the private property rights of individuals. The officials were also confident in their legal posiPon, as they believed that the Supreme Court’s previous decisions on eminent domain allowed for the taking of private property for economic development purposes. However, they underesPmated the emoPonal a=achment that homeowners had to their properPes and the community in which they lived.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS WERE MADE BY THE PLAINTIFFS REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE EMINENT DOMAIN POWER USED BY THE CITY.
The PlainPffs argued that the City’s use of eminent domain violated the FiZh Amendment’s “public use” requirement. They contended that the proposed development was not a public use because it would primarily benefit a private corporaPon, Pfizer, rather than the public. The homeowners also argued that the taking of their homes would not provide any substanPal public benefit and would instead harm the community by destroying the social fabric of the neighborhood. UlPmately, the case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the City. However, the decision was controversial, and many legal scholars conPnue to debate the proper interpretaPon of the FiZh Amendment’s public use requirement.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OTHER CITIES TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH SIMILAR GOALS USING EMINENT DOMAIN
CiPes seeking to use eminent domain for economic development purposes should consider enacPng stricter standards to ensure that the public benefits of a project outweigh the private property rights of individuals. AddiPonally, ciPes should provide adequate compensaPon to property owners whose land is taken through eminent domain, including fair market value and relocaPon expenses. The Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, ConnecPcut, upheld the consPtuPonality of using eminent domain for economic development purposes. However, many states have since enacted legislaPon to limit the use of the eminent domain, parPcularly when it comes to taking property from individuals for the benefit of private corporaPons. CiPes should carefully consider the ethical and legal implicaPons of their acPons and should strive to balance the interests of the public and private property owners.
CONCLUSION
Li=le Pink House highlights the tension between private property rights and the public interest in economic development. The film shows the emoPonal toll that the use of eminent domain can take on individual property owners and raises important quesPons about the appropriate balance between individual rights and the common good. The case of Kelo v. New London, ConnecPcut, which was the subject of the film, remains controversial and conPnues to be debated among legal scholars and policymakers. UlPmately, ciPes seeking to use eminent domain for economic development purposes should carefully consider the potenPal costs and benefits of their acPons and should work to ensure that the public benefits of a project outweigh the private property rights of individuals. They should also take steps to provide fair compensaPon to property owners whose land is taken through eminent domain. By doing so, ciPes can minimize the negaPve impacts of eminent domain and create more equitable and sustainable communiPes.