REPLY TO CLASSMATE'S POST

Suppose you live in a town where a commercial development is trying to come in and “take” (in exchange for just compensation) several waterfront residences in order to build a new mall area with restaurants, bars and souvenir shops. This is promised to create 500 jobs and bring in countless visitors each year. 

Over the past 25 years, the town has been OK, but not booming, the tax base has been shrinking due to the younger people moving away, and what was once a major tourist economy is languishing. 

Is there a constitutional and/or public policy argument that would legally support the taking of these properties against the will of the residents? 

Taking the opposite side, are there legal arguments against the taking? Be sure to include specific examples and case law to support your work. 

Make sure this is a legal and not emotional argument—while a valid political concern, it is not a legal or constitutional one.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH MY CLASSMATE RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTION AND WHY? (A MININUM OF 125 WORDS)  

                                                                     CLASSMATE’S POST

The 5th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits the taking of a US Citizens property for public use without just compensation. Based on this Amendment Eminent domain allows for the the government to take the property as long as they provide just compensation. The commercial development would directly affect the community through increased tax revenue and jobs for the area. This makes the Eminent domain a public matter.
The government should not take the interest of one private party of the interest of another private party and the US Supreme Court agreed in the case Kelo v. New London. They held that invoking the public interest implies that it is okay for the government to value the interests of one private party over another and it is not.