The Little Blue Pill That Killed the Little Pink House

Abstract

Community and business interests are set in opposition, rather than in a harmonious balance, in the 2005 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London. The narrative of eminent domain, through the lens of Kelo, highlights these conflicting values. The case presents a local government that used its power of takings to attract Pfizer, the pharmaceutical conglomerate, to build a plant for production of the little blue pill, which symbolizes private interests in this case. The community's dissension of taking an individual's private property for use by another private entity centered on a pink house, which has come to be known as the symbol of eminent domain abuse. This narrative is explored through in-depth interviews with public administrators experienced with eminent domain, community grassroots organizers involved with the case, and relevant articles from the local newspaper. A key finding of the study surrounds similarities between the perspectives of those people involved in Kelo and administrators throughout the state of Connecticut, the birthplace of the case. Although a nation built on the notion of the right to hold private Article 370Administration & Society 47(4) property, the case suggests that in an era of late capitalism, business is of utmost importance to the community regardless of citizens' desires in the United States.

The Tensions of Transparency in Urban and Environmental Planning

“…Such entities are often less open to public scrutiny than local legislatures, either because of specific legal exceptions or because their relative insulation from the electorate emboldens them to flout relevant requirements (Foster 1997; Friedland, Piven, and Alford 1977; Walsh 1978). Venue-shifting to quasi-public entities is evident in efforts to develop large-scale mixed-use revitalization projects and professional sports facilities, which may require both the exercise of eminent domain and the creation of special financing mechanisms (Sapotichne and Smith 2012; see also Lavine and Oder 2010; Olejarski and Farley 2015). Scholars should more clearly identify the circumstances under which venue-shifting among overlapping governmental and nongovernmental entities undermines accountability in urban and environmental planning processes.…”

The Missing Piece: The Case for Administrative Law in the MSPA Curriculum

“…(For a fuller review of Administrative Discretion in Action , see Caiden, 2014. For more commentary on the case, see Olejarski & Farley, 2015. )…”

Irrelevance of “Public Use” in State Eminent Domain Reforms

“…In their seminal work on implementation, Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) remind us that missing this disconnect is fatal to the process; excessive media attention on governmental takings abuses tells us they were right because of the strong anti-eminent domain sentiment. Practitioners on the frontlines of takings have an opportunity to build goodwill within the community, beyond only holding required public hearings (deLeon & deLeon, 2002; Olejarski & Farley, 2015).…”