Reconsidering Poletown: In the Wake of Kelo, States Should Move to Restore Private Property Rights

This Note focuses on the second part of the protection that the Constitution offers private property holders: that the taking must be for a public use. This Note primarily posits that because Poletown had such a major effect on the erosion of private property rights in Michigan and many other states, its reversal by Hathcock may similarly shift the balance back and cause states to apply a more stringent public use requirement in order to protect private property rights. The U.S. Supreme Court failed to require this more stringent public use requirement in Kelo v. City of New London. However, individual states remain free to provide more protection for private property holders, and Hathcock’s approach provides an effective compromise between the necessity of the power of eminent domain and the importance of people being secure in their property.