Facts of the Case Essay Example for Free

Facts of the Case Essay New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendments takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London. In 1990, the city of New London was designated a distressed municipality. n6 The city was experiencing economic decline and suffered from an unemployment rate that was twice Connecticuts rate as a state. n7 As a result of these conditions, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) was called upon by state and local officials to plan New Londons redevelopment. n8 After the NLDC developed a plan to build a Fort Trumbell State Park, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceutical company, revealed its plan to build a $ 300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to Fort Trumbell. n9 The addition of Pfizer to the New London area was anticipated to entice other businesses to migrate to the city, effectively serving as a catalyst to the areas rejuvenation. n10 The NLDC received State approval, and the plan for Fort Trumbell State Park was completed. n11 The final plan for the Park encompassed services and businesses that would cap italize on the added commerce resulting from the inclusion of Pfizer to the area. n12 The NLDC intended to create jobs and increase tax revenue with the development plan, but the Park was also intended to bolster the areas aesthetic qualities and leisure activities. n13 The NLDC received permission from the city council to exercise eminent domain in the citys name, enabling it to acquire the property for the ninety-acre Park. n14 The NLDC was able to purchase most of the property in the target area; however, it was unable to secure fifteen pieces of real estate after negotiations. n15 One such piece of real estate was owned by Charles and Wilhelmina Dery who had lived on their property for over sixty years. n16 The properties of the nine owners who refused to sell, including the Derys property, were located in areas appropriated by the NLDC as sites for park support, such as parking, retail services, or office space. n17 In November of 2000, the NLDC condemned the fifteen properties that remained to be acquired in order for the development plan to advance. n18 LEGAL QUESTION: does a public purpose constitute a public use for purposes of the Fifth Amendments Taking Clause, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation? Specifically, does the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see main article: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights), protect landowners from the use of eminent domain for economic development, rather than, as in Berman, for the elimination of slums and blight? LENGTH: 8662 words STUDENT CASENOTE: Kelo v. City of New London NAME: Lia Sprague SUMMARY:? In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court debated whether the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes qualifies as a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In November of 2000, the NLDC condemned the fifteen properties that remained to be acquired in order for the development plan to advance. Upon a finding that the proposed uses were not attributable to the above factors, the court affirmed the judgment for the parcel 3 takings and reversed the judgment regarding parcel 4A, allowing both parcels to be seized through eminent domain. The Court relied on this rationale to find that the use of private parties to further the public benefit was an acceptable method to achieve public use. Weighing this with the idea that transfers intended to confer benefits on particular, favored private entities, and with only incidental or pretextual public benefits, are forbidden by the Public Use clause, Justice Kennedy stated that courts should seriously investigate accusations of private party favoritism by the government entity. Justice Thomas agreed that replacing the words public use with public purpose effectively erased the Public Use Clause from the Fifth Amendment. Establishing such a safeguard appropriately balances the public policy concerns both supporting and criticizing the use of eminent domain for economic development. TEXT:? [*381] I. Introduction In Kelo v. City of New London, n1 the Supreme Court debated whether the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes qualifies as a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. n2 The city of New London attempted to use the power of eminent domain to seize property to give to private companies in order to increase commerce in the area. n3 The Court found that, deferring to precedent, the public use requirement had been interpreted broadly. n4 Accordingly, in a five-to-four vote, the Court held that New Londons plans constituted public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. n5 II. Statement of Facts A. New Londons Development Plan and the Taking In 1990, the city of New London was designated a distressed municipality. n6 The city was experiencing economic decline and suffered from an unemployment rate that was twice Connecticuts rate as a state. n7 As a result of these conditions, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) was called upon by state and local officials to plan New Londons redevelopment. n8 After the NLDC developed a plan to build a Fort Trumbell State Park, Pfizer Inc. , the pharmaceutical company, revealed its plan to build a $ 300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to Fort Trumbell. n9 The addition of Pfizer to the New London area was anticipated to entice other businesses to migrate to the city, effectively serving as a catalyst to the areas rejuvenation. n10 The NLDC received State approval, and the plan for Fort Trumbell State Park was completed. n11 [*382] The final plan for the Park encompassed services and businesses that would capitalize on the added commerce resulting from the inclusion of Pfizer to the area. n12 The NLDC intended to create jobs and increase tax revenue with the development plan, but the Park was also intended to bolster the areas aesthetic qualities and leisure activities. n13 The NLDC received permission from the city council to exercise eminent domain in the citys name, enabling it to acquire the property for the ninety-acre Park. n14 The NLDC was able to purchase most of the property in the target area; however, it was unable to secure fifteen pieces of real estate after negotiations. n15 One such piece of real estate was owned by Charles and Wilhelmina Dery who had lived on their property for over sixty years. n16 The properties of the nine owners who refused to sell, including the Derys property, were located in areas appropriated by the NLDC as sites for park support, such as parking, retail services, or office space. n17 In November of 2000, the NLDC condemned the fifteen properties that remained to be acquired in order for the development plan to advance. n18 B. The Procedural History Petitioners filed suit in the Superior Court of Connecticut for the Judicial District of New London seeking injunctive relief to prevent the acquisition of their property through the use of eminent domain. n19 Petitioners argued that the takings at issue could not satisfy the public use requirement of Article 1 Â § 11 of the Connecticut Constitution (equivalent to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States) which reads in pertinent part: The property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation therefor[e]. n20 The petitioners submitted that a taking cannot be for a public use if it is motivated by a private entity. . . and if ultimately a private entity is to determine the fate of the property owners. . . . n21 The Superior Court found that broad statements on public use and deference to the legislature must be qualified. n22 The Superior Court further stated of its role in eminent domain actions: If the court considers the [*383] purpose not to be reasonable or connected to a valid public use, it is the duty of the court to declare the act authorizing the taking as unconstitutional. n23 After review of the facts, the Superior Court held that the statements regarding the use of parcel 4A were too vague and uncertain to allow the court to conclude the takings here [were] necessary and would not be unreasonable. n24 The court granted a permanent injunction against destroying the properties located in parcel 4A and granted a temporary injunction against the destruction of the properties in parcel 3 after finding that the takings were justified as to allow the petitioners to appeal without losing their homes. n25 Both parties appealed the trial courts judgment to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. n26 The appellate court stated that since the takings were authorized by the legislature, the standard the judiciary must apply was one of unreasonableness, bad faith, or abuse of power. n27 Upon a finding that the proposed uses were not attributable to the above factors, the court affirmed the judgment for the parcel 3 takings and reversed the judgment regarding parcel 4A, allowing both parcels to be seized through eminent domain. n28 The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut. n29 III. Decision and Rationale A. The Majority Opinion of the Court The Supreme Court held that the takings proposed by the City for the purpose of economic development are for a public use as directed by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. n30 It has been well established that the government is barred from taking private property solely for the purpose of transferring it to a private entity for its use. n31 The Court analyzed whether New London would be barred from taking property from petitioners to allocate to private parties for support services for Pfizer, a private corporation. n32 In order for the takings at issue here to violate the public use [*384] clause, the plan must have been adopted with the purpose of benefiting a particular class of identifiable individuals. n33 The Court stated that the governments pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties. n34 The Court directed the focus to be on the future use of the taking, rather than on the immediate benefit. n35 The Court warned that by focusing solely on the benefit to private parties, the purpose of [the] taking becomes confused with the mechanics of how the resulting public benefit was accomplished. n36 The Court relied on this rationale to find that the use of private parties to further the public benefit was an acceptable method to achieve public use. However, a determination still had to be made regarding whether the development plan encompassed public use of the condemned property. n37 Even though, in this case, the property would not be opened for use by the general public, the Court had previously embraced a broad interpretation of public use that was satisfied in this situation. n38 At the end of the nineteenth century, the Court began to apply a public purpose standard, effectively rejecting the notion that the general public must be allowed actual use of the taken property. n39 Therefore, the Court applied this public purpose standard to New Londons development plan which promoted creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and helping to build momentum for the revitalization of downtown New London. n40 The Court examined how the concept of eminent domain met the changing needs of society during its public purpose analysis. n41 In Berman v. Parker, n42 the Court upheld a plan seeking to distribute property in a blighted area to both public and private entities for the purpose of redevelopment and found that non-blighted property was still a justified taking because the project was analyzed as a whole. n43 Thirty years later, the Court decided Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff n44 where it found that the elimination of a land oligopoly was a sufficient public use even though the property was put back in the hands of private parties. n45 In the same year, the [*385] Court held in Ruckleshaus v. Monsanto n46 that the benefit to competition in the pesticide market outweighed any benefit given to subsequent applicants. n47 The Court applied this trend of increasingly broad interpretations of the phrase public use to the facts of the present case and found that New Londons redevelopment plan served a public purpose. n48 New London developed a plan that it hoped would enable the city to overcome its economic strains. This plan included a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational uses of land, with the hope that they [would] form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. n49 According to Berman, the Court cannot judge the plan on a piecemeal basis, but must examine the possible outcomes of the plan as a whole. n50 The Court compared the economic benefit in this case to the previously mentioned cases and found no reason to distinguish between economic benefit received through tax revenue and increased job prospects from the economic benefits that have been previously upheld by the Court. n51 This rationale was further justified after looking at New Londons development plan. n52 Courts have long deferred to the decisions of state legislatures, absent a showing that the purpose was illegitimate or that the taking was validated by irrational justification. n53 The Courts position is to adjudicate the issue of public use and once that issue has been resolved, the legislature may use its discretion in determining by what means the plan will be accomplished. n54 The Court pointed out that states are able to place restrictions on its ability to procure property through eminent domain. n55 In this case, Connecticut had a statute specifically permitting the use of eminent domain for economic development. n56 As a result of this deference to legislation, combined with a broad interpretation of public use and the allowance of private parties as an intermediary towards the final goal of public purpose, the Court held that New Londons proposed takings satisfied the [*386] public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. n57 B. The Concurring Opinion of Justice Kennedy Justice Kennedy emphasized the utilization of a rational-basis standard of review for cases analyzing the public use clause. n58 Weighing this with the idea that transfers intended to confer benefits on particular, favored private entities, and with only incidental or pretextual public benefits, are forbidden by the Public Use clause, Justice Kennedy stated that courts should seriously investigate accusations of private party favoritism by the government entity. n59 Petitioners attempted to establish a need for a rule that presumptively invalidates any takings for purposes of economic development in order to allow the Court to discover the true motives behind the takings. n60 Justice Kennedy pointed out that the trial court in this case carefully examined the evidence and found that the primary motivation of the plan was to utilize Pfizers presence in the city to create an increase in commerce, a finding that eliminated the need to establish a higher standard of review in this case. n61 He was careful to note that some cases may warrant a presumption of invalidity. n62 However, Justice Kennedy stated that because the city developed a plan with substantial anticipated economic benefits that was subject to the review of the citys underlying motivations, and because the identities of the private entities were not established at the onset of the development planning, this case presented no circumstances that would justify an increased standard of review. C. The Dissenting Opinion of Justice OConnor, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas Justice OConnor disagreed with the majoritys opinion which stated that there were incidental private benefits in this case that were inferior to a substantial public benefit. n63 She felt that the reverse was true, and that by ruling in such a way, the Court had effectivelydelete[d] the words for public use from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. n64 This was consistent with the petitioners argument stating that the government may not take their property for the private use of other owners simply because the [*387] new owners may make more productive use of the property. n65 The premise of this argument was based upon the judiciarys position to determine the meaning of public use as it differed from the legislatures opinion. n66 Justice OConnor conceded that the Court should defer to the legislatures determination of what constitutes public use. n67 However, if the legislatures power to define this term was unlimited, without the possibility of a review from the judiciary branch, the Public Use Clause would amount to little more than hortatory fluff. n68 Justice OConnor recognized that certain circumstances exist in which the Public Use Clause should be interpreted broadly. She disagreed, however, that this should be a generalized holding allowing the inclusion of economic development as a public purpose. n69 As support for this argument, Justice OConnor distinguished two of the cases upon which the majority relied to reach their holding. n70 In Berman, the Court upheld a taking of blighted property, part of which was passed to private parties for the sake of redevelopment. n71 Congress had determined that the blighted area was hazardous to the health, safety, morals, and welfare, and thus eminent domain was appropriate to eliminate these conditions. n72 Looking at the neighborhood as a whole, the public purpose of eliminating hazardous conditions took precedence over allowing an owner of a non-blighted store to keep his property. n73 In Midkiff, the Court upheld a taking for the purpose of eliminating a land oligopoly that was skewing the States residential fee simple market, inflating land prices, and injuring the public tranquility and welfare. n74 Justice OConnor distinguished the two cases from the case at bar because the takings in Berman and Midkiff eliminated an affirmative harm on society rather than the public receiving a benefit that was secondary to private parties benefit. n75 By distinguishing the above cases, Justice OConnor found that precedent did not compel the majority to uphold such a broad rule that contained no limitations. n76 [*388] D. The Dissenting Opinion of Justice Thomas Justice Thomas agreed that replacing the words public use with public purpose effectively erased the Public Use Clause from the Fifth Amendment. n77 He stated that the present case is not the only case that has misconstrued the Takings Clause; rather, the line of cases leading up to the present have strayed from the Clauses original meaning. n78 Examining the language of the Fifth Amendment, Justice Thomas concluded that the phrase public use would be unnecessary verbiage if not interpreted as a limitation, and thus states that the Public Use Clause is therefore an express limit on the governments power of eminent domain. n79 After examining the plain language of the public use requirement, Justice Thomas further concluded that the drafters intended the clause to carry a narrow meaning requiring actual public employment of the taken property. n80 He also analyzed the Constitutions common-law background as well as the historical uses of eminent domain to reach the same narrow definition of public use. n81 Justice Thomas then examined a case relied on by the majority, Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, n82 by stating that the majority improperly relied on dicta in the case that was unnecessarily broad and cited no supporting authority. n83 This reasoning was brought up again by Justice Thomas when discussing United States v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co. , n84 from which the court relied on dicta stating that the judiciary shall respect the legislatures judgment when deciding a question of public use unless that judgment is unreasonable. n85 Justice Thomas claimed that the courts should not exhibit deference to the decisions of the legislature in such cases because a court owes no deference to a legislatures judgment concerning the quintessentially legal question of whether the government owns, or the public has a legal right to use, the taken property. n86 He also hypothesized that the Framers would not have subjected only the Public Use Clause to legislative deference out of all the provisions of the Bill of Rights. n87 He further argued that the Public Use Clause limits the legislative power of eminent domain, and thus by removing [*389] the power of the judiciary to oversee the limitation of that power, the purpose of the Clause is eliminated. n88 He analyzed the two cases Berman and Midkiff, and stated that the Court was wrong in those cases to equate the eminent domain power with the police power of the States. n89 He differentiated the two powers by concluding that the customary uses of police power do not require compensation to the citizens, while the uses of eminent domain always require compensation, concluding that the two powers were separate. n90 Justice Thomas further concluded that the combination of the above factors constructively eliminates the Public Use Clause from the Fifth Amendment, and he therefore stated that the appropriate interpretation of public use is that the property be used by the government or the public. n91 IV. Analysis Public policy dictates that the government should not be expected to compensate owners that hold out on selling their property in order to demand an unreasonably high payment. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment effectively overcomes this societal detriment; however, the public policy benefit favoring governmental takings needs to be balanced against the public policy favoring a citizens right to keep his property. With this in mind, the Framers added the Public Use Clause to the Fifth Amendment in order to limit the governments power to exercise eminent domain at its own discretion. Courts also need to remember this desire for balance between competing public policy issues when interpreting the Public Use Clause. The Supreme Court has gradually shaped the Public Use Clause to allow, in theory, any taking by the government that benefits the public regardless of whether that proposed effect is primary or secondary, substantial or minimal. The latest holding regarding eminent domain from the Supreme Court in Kelo allowed the taking of property for the abstract reasons of increased tax revenue and job opportunities. In the Courts holding, there were no express limitations on this new ability to confiscate property for such intangible benefits. Conversely, the Court stated that deference should be given to the legislatures decision of the appropriateness of the taking. n92 While the Court reviewed a comprehensive plan developed by the City outlining the intended uses of the condemned property, it did not require the City to show any proof that the intended uses [*390] were reasonably certain to result in the proposed public benefit. n93 The Court reasoned that if it were to impose such a requirement of proof, a significant impediment to the successful consummation of many such plans would result. n94 While there is a significant interest in promoting commerce, the Court seemingly overlooks the equally significant interest of affording homeowners protection from unnecessary takings. It seems reasonable to expect that if a city has an extensively planned development plan, such as was exhibited by the city of New London, it should further have planned out the financial details of such a development plan. This one additional step in the planning of the proposed takings could eliminate development plans that successfully complete the takings stage of the plan only to have the financing fall through, thus leaving the condemned homes empty and the land wasted. The law of waste is a basic property concept stating that land should be used in a way that maximizes the propertys value. n95 There can be no greater waste of property than to force owners to leave their homes and then allow the property to remain vacant while sources of funding are sought. There are many examples illustrating the aftermath of approving such a plan without forcing the legislature to obtain the means to institute that plan before issuing condemnation. n96 One particularly unjust case took place in Cincinnati, Ohio. n97 Nordstrom, the retail store, decided to locate in the city of Cincinnati. n98 However, a Walgreens store currently occupied the location that it wanted. n99 Walgreens agreed to move to a new location, but the new location was home to a CVS store. n100 The CVS store refused to move, and the city initiated condemnation proceedings in order to utilize its power of eminent domain, [*391] after which CVS agreed to settle. n101 The settlement required that the city move Walgreens to the lot across the street from CVS, which unfortunately held many small businesses of which the city condemned in order to give the land to Walgreens. n102 The problem looked resolved (at the expense of the small businesses that were forced to close their doors), but the city overlooked a clause in the agreement with Nordstrom. n103 Under the parties initial agreement, the city agreed to leave vacant the very parcel that it had just handed to Walgreens so that additional upscale' shops could be built adjacent to Nordstrom. n104 The city never rearranged the parcels, and Nordstrom never began building. n105 Nordstrom eventually announced that it would no longer be opening in Cincinnati on account of declining profit margins. n106 The city paved the vacant lot so that it could exist as a parking lot. n107 Luckily, a similar situation was resolved between the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) and Corcoran Jennison, the developer with whom the city contracted to build the hotel and convention center in Fort Trumbell. n108 An Associated Press article revealed that the NLDC claimed that Corcoran Jennison failed to find financing for the project and thus wanted to downgrade the quality of the hotel. n109 Corcoran Jennison rebutted that the NLDC was at fault because it set unrealistic standards for the hotel that were not economically feasible. n110 The president of the company, Marty Jones, stated that the company felt that the NLDCs tactics [did] not serve the communitys interests in generating timely economic development and new tax revenue at Fort Trumbull. n111 According to David Goebel, Chief Operating Officer of the NLDC, as of September 7, 2005, Corcoran Jennison has since obtained zoning approval for the plan and the plan is undergoing review as per the development agreement. n112 While funds have not been secured yet, the [*392] developer is currently pursuing final financial arrangements for construction of the hotel. n113 The fact that the city possessed an extensive proposed development plan could not have curtailed the dispute between the NLDC and the developer. The city is fortunate that it was able to compromise on its plan, thus preserving the premise that legitimized the takings, even though final funding is still absent from the project. However, a better safeguard than simply being fortunate should be required by the Court before upholding such takings. This safeguard is simple and legitimate; require proof to a reasonable certainty that such benefit will occur. If the city had been required to show proof of its financial backing, the developer would have been forced to find final funding before the condemnations were upheld by the Supreme Court. If the city of Cincinnati had been required to prove to a reasonable certainty that condemning small businesses for the sake of moving the Walgreens would allow a Nordstrom store to open in the city, perhaps city officials would not have missed the clause in the contract which delayed development of the store after which Nordstrom could no longer afford to open there. If the Court is unwilling to review the decisions of state legislatures, then it should impose a different safeguard for the property owners. This safeguard was appropriately suggested by the petitioners in Kelo and the benefit of such a review was promptly disregarded by the majority. n114 While it can be assumed that the legislature will not abuse its discretionary power, it is unreasonable to think a legislature that favors using eminent domain for the purposes of economic development will subject itself to safeguards favoring the property owners if it is not held to any review by the courts. With this in mind, some legislatures are taking it upon themselves to impose either stricter guidelines regulating the Public Use Clause or they are expressly stating that economic development is not a proper interpretation of public use. n115 This is evidenced by the fact that [j]ust five weeks after the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain to seize private property for economic development, more than half of the states have introduced legislation to thwart potential abuses. n116 A legislative change route was suggested by the majority opinion and was apparently embraced by twenty-eight states. Such a change is also being embraced by federal legislation, as the House of Representatives is currently examining a bill that [*393] prohibits the dispersion of government funding to any city that uses eminent domain as a means to promote private commercial development. n117 While these twenty-eight states have taken the responsibility to ensure the fair treatment of their citizens, there remain twenty-two states that have not dealt with this pressing issue. For that reason, it is imperative that courts examine the possibility that the legislation might not have obtained all the avenues (and financing) necessary to achieve a successful result for both the city and the property owner. A balance can be struck between the needs of the public via eminent domain and the needs of the private property owner who is sacrificing his home for the public utility. The implication of a simple safeguard requiring a city to prove that its plan will be successful in achieving a public benefit is all that stands in the way of achieving this balance. V. Conclusion Eminent domain is a necessary action employed by legislatures for a variety of reasons. The Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that economic development was an appropriate reason for which eminent domain could be exercised. While noting that the city of New London possessed a comprehensive development plan, the Court imposed no express restrictions upon the ability of the legislature to exercise eminent domain for such purposes. The Court rejected the petitioners argument that the city should be required to show to a reasonable certainty that the public benefit would occur before the condemnation was allowed. This lack of legislative review by the Court constructively removed the Public Use Clause from the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution as the legislature now has free reign with which to decide for itself whether a proposed taking constitutes public use. While there is an assumption that the legislature will not abuse its power when deciding to take its citizens property, it should not be assumed that the same legislature will take the appropriate measures to safeguard that its citizens property will be utilized successfully. These measures should be implemented by the Court in the form of a review requiring the city to show with a reasonable certainty that the public benefit will occur. Th

Dimitri Shostakovich Essay -- essays research papers fc

Dmitri Shostakovich Dmitri Shostakovich, born on September 25, 1905, started taking piano lessons from his mother at the age of nine after he showed interest in a string quartet that practiced next door. He entered the Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg, later Leningrad) Conservatory in 1919, where he studied the piano with Leonid Nikolayev until 1923 and composition until 1925 with Aleksandr Glazunov and Maksimilian Steinberg. He participated in the Chopin International Competition for Pianists in Warsaw in 1927 and received an honorable mention, after which he decided to limit his public performances to his own works to separate himself from the virtuoso pianists. Prior to the competition, he had had a far greater success as a composer with the First Symphony (1924-25), which quickly achieved worldwide recognition. The symphony was influenced by composers as diverse as Tchaikovsky, Paul Hindemith, and Sergey Prokofiev. The cultural climate in the Soviet Union was, compared to the Soviet Union at its peak, free at the time. Even the music of Igor Stravinsky and Alban Berg, then in the avant-garde, was played. Bela Bartok and Paul Hindemith visited Russia to perform their own works, and Shostakovich toyed openly with these novelties. His first opera, The Nose, based on the satiric Nikolay Gogol story, displayed a thorough understanding of what was popular in Western music combined with his "dry" humor. Not surprisingly, Shostakovich's undoubtedly finer second opera, Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (later renamed Katerina Izmaylova), marked a stylistic retreat. However, this new Shostakovich was too avant-garde for Stalin. In 1928, Joseph Stalin inaugurated his First Five-Year Plan, an "iron hand fastened on Soviet culture," (Johnson) and in music a direct and popular style was demanded. Avant-garde music and jazz were banished, and for a while even Tchaikovsky was looked down upon. Shostakovich remained in good favor for a time, but it has been said that it was Stalin's personal anger at what he heard when he attended a performance of Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District in 1936 that sparked the official condemnation of the opera and of its creator. The focus of the opera was based around murder, conspiracy, and trickery, all of which were the worst things that a Russian could speak of. Shostakovich was brutally attacked in ... ...obert Dearling. The Music of Dmitri Shostakovich: the symphonies. Tantivy Press, 1979 Brown, Royal S. ‘Interview with Shostakovich.’ High Fidelity, 23 (October 1973). Fanning, David. The Breath of the Symphonist: Shostakovich’s Tenth. Royal Musical Association, 1988. Fay, Laurel E. ‘Shostakovich vs. Volkov: whose Testimony?’ The Russian Review (October 1980), pp. 484-93. Johnson, Priscilla and Leopold Labdez (eds.). Khrushchev and the Arts: the politics of Soviet Culture, 1962-64. MIT Press, 1965. Kay, Norman. Dmitri Shostakovich. Oxford University Press, 1972. MacDonald, Ian. The New Shostakovich. Northeastern University Press, 1990. Norris, Christopher. Bibliography of Russian Composers. White Lion, 1976. Olkhovsky, Andrei. Music under the Soviets: the agony of an art. Praeger, 1955. Salisbury, Harrison. ‘A Visit with Dmitri Shostakovich.’ New York Times, 8 August 1954. Schwartz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, 1917-1981. 2nd edition. Indiana University Press, 1983. Sollertinsky, Dmitri and Ludmilla. Pages from the Life of Dmitri Shostakovich. Hale, 1981. Volkov, Solomon (ed.). Testimony: the memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich. Harper & Row, 1979. Dimitri Shostakovich Essay -- essays research papers fc Dmitri Shostakovich Dmitri Shostakovich, born on September 25, 1905, started taking piano lessons from his mother at the age of nine after he showed interest in a string quartet that practiced next door. He entered the Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg, later Leningrad) Conservatory in 1919, where he studied the piano with Leonid Nikolayev until 1923 and composition until 1925 with Aleksandr Glazunov and Maksimilian Steinberg. He participated in the Chopin International Competition for Pianists in Warsaw in 1927 and received an honorable mention, after which he decided to limit his public performances to his own works to separate himself from the virtuoso pianists. Prior to the competition, he had had a far greater success as a composer with the First Symphony (1924-25), which quickly achieved worldwide recognition. The symphony was influenced by composers as diverse as Tchaikovsky, Paul Hindemith, and Sergey Prokofiev. The cultural climate in the Soviet Union was, compared to the Soviet Union at its peak, free at the time. Even the music of Igor Stravinsky and Alban Berg, then in the avant-garde, was played. Bela Bartok and Paul Hindemith visited Russia to perform their own works, and Shostakovich toyed openly with these novelties. His first opera, The Nose, based on the satiric Nikolay Gogol story, displayed a thorough understanding of what was popular in Western music combined with his "dry" humor. Not surprisingly, Shostakovich's undoubtedly finer second opera, Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (later renamed Katerina Izmaylova), marked a stylistic retreat. However, this new Shostakovich was too avant-garde for Stalin. In 1928, Joseph Stalin inaugurated his First Five-Year Plan, an "iron hand fastened on Soviet culture," (Johnson) and in music a direct and popular style was demanded. Avant-garde music and jazz were banished, and for a while even Tchaikovsky was looked down upon. Shostakovich remained in good favor for a time, but it has been said that it was Stalin's personal anger at what he heard when he attended a performance of Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District in 1936 that sparked the official condemnation of the opera and of its creator. The focus of the opera was based around murder, conspiracy, and trickery, all of which were the worst things that a Russian could speak of. Shostakovich was brutally attacked in ... ...obert Dearling. The Music of Dmitri Shostakovich: the symphonies. Tantivy Press, 1979 Brown, Royal S. ‘Interview with Shostakovich.’ High Fidelity, 23 (October 1973). Fanning, David. The Breath of the Symphonist: Shostakovich’s Tenth. Royal Musical Association, 1988. Fay, Laurel E. ‘Shostakovich vs. Volkov: whose Testimony?’ The Russian Review (October 1980), pp. 484-93. Johnson, Priscilla and Leopold Labdez (eds.). Khrushchev and the Arts: the politics of Soviet Culture, 1962-64. MIT Press, 1965. Kay, Norman. Dmitri Shostakovich. Oxford University Press, 1972. MacDonald, Ian. The New Shostakovich. Northeastern University Press, 1990. Norris, Christopher. Bibliography of Russian Composers. White Lion, 1976. Olkhovsky, Andrei. Music under the Soviets: the agony of an art. Praeger, 1955. Salisbury, Harrison. ‘A Visit with Dmitri Shostakovich.’ New York Times, 8 August 1954. Schwartz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, 1917-1981. 2nd edition. Indiana University Press, 1983. Sollertinsky, Dmitri and Ludmilla. Pages from the Life of Dmitri Shostakovich. Hale, 1981. Volkov, Solomon (ed.). Testimony: the memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich. Harper & Row, 1979.

Economy versus the Environment Essay

Down to Earth by Ted Steinberg highlights the role of nature in US history. Steinberg provides historical events, from minute detail of migrating birds to monumental breaking up of Pangeae, to support his analysis and for readers to fully grasp the course of American history. He maintains that the continuous interaction between human and nature drives them to evolve. But the truth, of course, is that human has tendencies to disregard nature to achieve their ideal standard of living. Moreover, human’s present consumption puts the life of future generation at risk. Long before the European settlement in the region, America’s natural resources were already being threatened. Native American hunters utilized the world around them according to their needs. These early hunters drove mammoths to extinction, as well as the giant ground sloths and other prehistoric species. Many of them used fire to clear landscape which did served their purpose but harmed other plants and animals. Eventually, however, they became gifted stewards of their environment. Their activities, hunting, gathering and farming, were influenced by the cycles of nature. The early exploration dictated by personal consumption quickly followed by exploitation. Migrants poured in pursuit of gold and silver in the English colonies which was abandoned for intensive harvesting of lucrative crops or the trapping of animals. The slang â€Å"buck† for money in America refers to deer hides called buckskins, being exported for glove making and other forms of leather manufacturing. This economic system persists until the end of the colonial period. By mid-1800s, regions were identified by the kind of cash crops they produced. Tobacco, â€Å"King Cotton,† rice from South Carolina lowlands, timber from the virgin forests of the Great Lakes, Texas cattle and wheat from the Great Plains. The system made the nation wealthy but at a devastating cost to biodiversity. Steinberg pointed out that the major factor that brought the ecological change in America is â€Å"putting a price tag on the natural world. † Cities were expanding, farmers were becoming more specialized in their cash crops and companies were pushing for more profits. Nature was transformed to articles of trade. Lumber companies, for instance, led to much deforestation which led to loss of other plants and habitat of animals. The citizens of the US seemed to have a sense of â€Å"ecological amnesia,† oblivious to the effect on nature of ruthless exploitation despite the mounting evidence. Aside from lumber companies, other businesses and industries abused the natural resources for profit to further degrade the environment. A common man specializing in one type of cash crop had to rely on other farmers to provide for the needs not met by his own produce. Rivers where fish used to spawn were dammed and converted to companies’ energy source. Nature was completely ignored in the interest of commerce and industry. As trade and commercialization intensifies so as reliance of everyone on someone else. Economic activity, both production and consumption, relates to the environment in two ways: the environment provides the raw materials for production, and through the process of production and consumption, we emit wastes into the environment (Worster, 1994). However, human wants are limited while resources are finite. Demand always exceeds supply. So what happens now if we continue to strive to obtain more goods and services from our limited supply of non-renewable resources? Our present and future generations are in peril. Economic theories of trade argue that a country should concentrate on trading and producing goods and services where they have the comparative advantage (Krugman& Obstfeld, 2008). The comparative advantage in production is achieved if the input that was used is abundant in the country. For instance, labor intensive goods should be traded by countries with large population, while countries should concentrate in producing capital intensive goods if they are abundant in capital. This exactly what the early traders did. They traded according to their comparative advantage, maximized their profit and yes, abused the environment to further their gains. The economic thinking that competitiveness as a function of efficiency of labor and capital is outmoded (Epping, 2001). In other parts of the world, industries are starting to factor in the efficient way of using their natural resources. These efficiencies benefit countries, companies and local communities. Japan and Germany use half the energy input of American industry in their products. Energy represents about 10 percent of the cost of production and so they achieve with their efficiency about a five percent comparative advantage in world markets relative to US goods. The idea is to have a sustainable supply of both non-renewable and renewable resources relative to demand, to use the natural resources in a more efficient way to make the goods and services of a country, a company or a community more competitive in the market. We do not want to be the generation that kills everything. References Epping, Randy Charles (2001). A Beginner’s Guide To World Economy. New York: Random House, Inc. Krugman, P. & Obstfeld, M. (2008). International Economics: Theory and Policy. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Steinberg, Ted (2002). Down To Earth (pp. 1-115). New York: Oxford UP. Worster, Donald (1994). Nature’s Economy: The History of Ecological Ideas. United Kingdom: Cambridge UP.

The American Civil War helped to save the nation by...

The American Civil War helped to save the nation by rejoining Union Confederate and as result of the Emancipation Proclamation, most African American slaves were declared freed men. However, during the American Reconstruction, the lack of political unity was still very apparent as the South saw Reconstruction as being defeated humiliatingly and thus sought vengeance through the slaves it had lose. Although many slaves did receive their freedom, Reconstruction caused an increase in the white supremacy groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and laws such black codes/ Jim Crow laws/ sharecropping, which limited the rights freed slaves had. This unfortunately caused many of the freed slaves to be only marginally better off than before the Civil War†¦show more content†¦The main success of the Bureau lies in the establishment of schools. It spent over five million dollars for the creation of schools; by 1870, there were over 1000 schools in the south. It helped to found some historicall y black colleges and universities such as Howard University. In addition to school, it also helped with the funding of churches. Unfortunately, by 1971, it had lost most of its funding and consequently, its staff members. It failed to carry out any long term protection for freed slaves and did not produce any real measure of equality in the South. One opponent of the Bureau was President Andrew Johnson. He returned confiscated property to white Confederates, pardoned hundreds of former Confederate officers, soldiers and government officials, and tried to limit the amount of land the Bureau could sell by taking the land the Union had confiscated and gave to the Bureau and giving it to previous white landowners. When Congress first passed a bill in February, 1866, to extend the Bureau’s existence and to give it new legal powers to sell land, Johnson vetoed the proposed legislation and argued that it interfered with states’ rights, gave preference to one group of people over another and would be financially stressful on the government because of its extended funding. Congress overShow MoreRelated Paper761 Words   |  4 Pages In the 1790s members of the industry in both Paris and London were working on inventions to try to mechanise paper-making. In England John Dickenson produced the cylinder machine that was ope rational by 1809. Although useful for smaller enterprises, this lacked the large scale potential of the machine resulting from the invention of Nicholas-Louis Robert in Paris, which had a more complicated incubation period. The last of the early improvements to this machine were financed by the Fourdrinier brothersRead MoreReflection Paper836 Words   |  4 Pagesand integrating quotes. Before my papers were full of â€Å"she said† and â€Å"she would say†; which was boring and showed poor ability to lengthen my word choice. I also had a tendency to just throw quotes in and not integrate it into my writings. By the end of my English 101 class my papers began to present with words like â€Å"the author noted†, or â€Å"she stated† along with many other word choices and proper ways of using quotes. Here is an example from my final research paper: â€Å"Author Stephanie Jackson, a certifiedRead MoreOn Behalf of Paper1685 Words   |  7 PagesFor centuries, people have read and learned on paper. It has loyally served man as the ideal vehicle for conveying our thoughts, feelings, and ideas. In recent years, an opponent has risen: computers. The computer brought the world to our fingertips, to the palm of our hands, but is this competitor superior? Should we drop the written and printed empire that had dominated and quenched our thirst for knowledge for so long? Paper has served an ever-changing world well, constantly adapting and morphingRead MoreReflection Paper1317 Words   |  6 Pagesused to struggle with forming my thoughts into writing, let alone a paper. I was never confident with what I wrote. My writing had no greater purpose other than the assignment. My writing process included: writing my paper, proofreading it, and turning it in. Once the paper left my hands, it also left my mind. Throughout this course we worked with others, visited the writing lab, wrote critiques, and we were able to revise our papers. I believe that all of this is has caused me to grow greatly as aRead More History of Paper1180 Words   |  5 Pages The first historical mention of paper is 104 A.D. in China. The Empress of China at that time loved books and wanted to have a lot of them made. At the time everything was written on silk scrolls which were extremely expensive and time consuming to make. She wanted something cheaper and easier to use and so she asked one of her servants, a gentleman by the name of Tsi Lun to come up with an alternative. He worked for over nine years experimenting with different things and finally came up with hempRead MoreImportance Of Writing Paper870 Words   |  4 Pages Writing papers have not always been my favorite thing to do. The main reason why I detested writing papers, was because I considered my English horrible. English is not my native language and learning it was difficult i n my opinion. Especially, when as a child the only place where you could speak English was at school. Other than that, the only language I was allowed to speak at home was Spanish. Throughout the years I eventually got the hang of it, and at the beginning of fourth grade, I was placedRead MoreCharacteristics And Quality Of A Paper1062 Words   |  5 PagesChoosing the right paper is more complex and it requires more work than just picking any expensive sheet and keeping your fingers crossed. To choose the right paper, you should not choose one based on the highest quality available, or the most expensive one. Instead, you should choose your paper based on the paper size options, durability, finishing, color, the paper weight, price, availability, opacity, and brightness. To choose between the function and quality of a paper is not very easy. It isRead MoreSelf-Reflective Paper 838 Words   |  3 Pagesfixed. Although it was a process, I finally got around to clearly understanding what the objectives were for English 1302 and how to apply them to my papers for this course. The first objective that is given in the syllabus is to meet the requirement of 20 pages total by the end of the course. The objective includes being able to revise and edit papers in a proper fashion. There was a time where revising and editing did not seem important, however, it can make a significant difference in a grade.Read MoreRecycling Waste Paper11594 Words   |  47 PagesPaper recycling  is the process of recovering waste paper and remaking it into new paper products. There are three categories of paper that can be used as feedstocks for making recycled paper: mill broke, pre-consumer waste, and post-consumer waste.[1]  Mill broke  is paper trimmings and other paper scrap from the manufacture of paper, and is recycled internally in a  paper mill.  Pre-consumer waste  is material which left the paper mill but was discarded before it was ready for consumer use.  Post-consumer  wasteRead MoreCarabao Grass Paper17210 Words   |  69 PagesINTRODUCTION History Paper is believed to have originated in China sometime around A.D. 105. Its invention is credited to a Chinese artisan by the name of Tsai-Lun. Tsai Lun created the first type of paper by mixing macerated cellulose fiber with water. His method was simple. He beat rags to a pulp and diluted this with lots of water. He then drained the resultant mixture through a form of a sieve. The fibers matted together and, when it dried, formed what we know now as paper. This papermaking process