University:
Indiana University Bloomington
Course:
Financial and Managerial Accounting: Information for Decisions - John J. Wild
Academic year:

2024
Views:

476

Pages:

2
Author:

bratrochanter

The text covers several key legal principles related to property accessibility, eminent domain, nuisance law, and landmark cases, including the ADA's requirements for public accommodations and the implications of the Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court case. Property Accessibility and the ADA Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), property owners of public accommodations must ensure accessibility for individuals with disabilities. This often requires modifying existing structures to remove barriers if "readily achievable"—a standard based on the nature, cost, and financial burden on the owner. New constructions must comply with ADA standards to ensure accessibility from the outset. Remedies for non-compliance include civil suits for injunctive relief, where courts may order modifications for accessibility and award attorney's fees. The U.S. Attorney General can pursue civil actions against violators, potentially leading to damages and civil penalties based on the severity and frequency of the offense. Government Powers Over Private Land and Constitutional Limits 1. Land Use Control: While property owners generally have rights to use their land, societal interests impose limits through zoning, subdivision ordinances, and nuisance laws. o Nuisance Law: This protects neighbors from property uses that unreasonably interfere with their enjoyment, such as hazardous or overly disruptive activities. Nuisances may be private (affecting individual landowners) or public (affecting broader communities). Remedies include damages, injunctions, and government actions to abate public nuisances. 2. Eminent Domain: The government can take private property for public use if it provides "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment. While eminent domain is often exercised for infrastructure projects, the Kelo case highlights the controversy around taking property to transfer to private developers for economic revitalization. Critics argue that such uses stretch the interpretation of "public use," particularly when individuals are compensated at "fair market value," which may undervalue sentimental or business-related losses. Kelo v. City of New London Case Summary In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court addressed whether transferring property from one private owner to another for economic development serves a "public use." New London's development plan aimed to revitalize the distressed Fort Trumbull area, involving properties taken under eminent domain to benefit the local economy and attract businesses like Pfizer. Petitioners, including Susette Kelo, argued that this violated the Fifth Amendment since the development primarily benefited private entities rather than ensuring a direct public use. The Supreme Court upheld the takings, ruling that economic development qualifies as a public use when tied to a comprehensive development plan, provided no private party receives an unfair advantage. This case underscores the balance between government authority and private property rights, especially in economic development contexts.