Power of eminent domain is “the ability to take private property for public use.” (New London, Connecticut) Kelo vs. the city of New England is the battle of eminent domain and whether it is constitutional. The case deals with the constitutional justification of taking away land even when ‘compensation is involved. “The new case focuses on the breadth of the “public use” phrase, and whether a condemnation violates property rights when it is not to eliminate blight and instead is for economic development.” (Biskupic 2004) Susette Kelo filed suit against the state for wanting to take away private property. (Mears 2005) Eventually, the case went in the favor of the state and the causes behind that decision are justifiable. The economic well-being of a society is important because it circulates revenue and creating new jobs for local people. “In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.” (Susette Kelo, et al., petitioners c. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. 2005) The City of New England has been in economic despair for a long time – the unemployment rate of the city in 1998 was double the unemployment rate of the state. (Susette Kelo, et al., petitioners c. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. 2005) When such economic despair exists it is justifiable to propose a revitalizing development program for the city. One objection made by the petitioners was that acquiring private property would benefit private parties whereas the benefit is constitutionally supposed to be geared toward the public. The court defended this objection, “Quite simply, the government’s pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties. For example, in Midkiff , the forced transfer of property conferred a direct and significant benefit on those lessees who were previously unable to purchase their homes. In Monsanto , we recognized that the “most direct beneficiaries” of the data-sharing provisions were the subsequent pesticide applicants, but benefiting them in this way was necessary to promoting competition in the pesticide market.” (Susette Kelo, et al., petitioners c. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. 2005) Just because a decision geared towards the public best interest coincidentally provides an opportunity for the private sector is no reason to abolish the idea of helping the public sector. The interests of the public are at the heart of this economic development and any opportunity provided to private businesses is simply incidental and natural. Susette Kelo and her neighbors raised many objections against the redevelopment plan. (Kelo et al. v . City of New London et al. 2005) The most compelling reason was the fact that these people would have to lose their homes. Taking away someone’s home for economic development sounds harsh, cruel, and unconstitutional. Although compensation can be given to these homeowners the emotional value cannot be matched. (Mears 2005) Emotional conflicts though cannot be the driving force behind economic decisions. The City of New London has clearly been in economic despair for a while and a redevelopment program would help the enti