Here is this case link:https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-108Only research on number 2 please.

2.The original ruling and ruling subsequent to the appeal:
In the year 2000, the city of New London adopted a development plan..So they acquired land from the residents belonging to this location to execute a development plan. After approving a unified improvement plan designed to revitalize its suffering economy, the defendant metropolis of New London, Connecticut, thru its improvement agency, bought maximum of the belongings made to be had for the challenge from to be had vendors, however initiated litigation whilst the petitioners, the belongings proprietors remaining, denied to sell.
This plan was expected to generate over 1,000 new employment, raise other incomes and taxation, also rehabilitate an financially disadvantaged city, particularly its downtown and waterfront regions. The municipality's improvement representative has acquired property from interested sellers and plans to exercise the legal authority to collect the ultimate of the belongings from reluctant landlords in change for cheap reimbursement a good way to gather the acreage required for this project. The dispute here is whether or not town's intended nature of this land qualifies as a public use.
The metropolis of New London is placed in southeastern Connecticut on the confluence of the Thames River and the Long Island. Decades of financial downturn brought on a governmental fee to claim the City a “distraught metropolis” in 1990. In 1996, the Legislative Branch closed the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which turned into placed within side the metropolis's Fort Trumbull community and hired...