Question

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Peter Zarella argued that “the constitutionality of condemnations undertaken for the purpose of private economic development depends not only on the professed goals of the development plan, but also on the prospect of their achievement.” Presciently, he warned that “[the] record contains scant evidence to suggest that the predicted public benefit will be realized with any reasonable certainty” and that it was “impossible to determine whether future development of the area . . . will even benefit the public at all.”
–“The story behind Kelo v. City of New London,”
Ilia Somin
Which statement best paraphrases Justice Zarella’s dissenting opinion?
The condemnation of any private property by the government was unconstitutional.
The potential benefit of taking the property for the public outweighed the owners’ rights.
It could not be determined with certainty that developing the property would benefit the public.
The property could not legally be earmarked for public use while it remained privately owned.

Answer 1

It could not be determined with certainty that developing the property would benefit the public.