The term "eminent domain" is a legal one describing the power of the government, in this case the local government, to appropriate private property for public use. Historically, the right of eminent domain has been exercised when the acquisition of private property is related to the completion of public works projects such as the construction of roads and bridges. Although eminent domain is most commonly used this way, the state is not limited to using the reason of public works as justification for exercising this right. With that said, it is important to note that the Fifth Amendment clearly states that private property may only be taken for public use if just compensation is paid to the current owner.

The term "public use" is where the disagreement on the application of eminent domain occurs. The phrase itself is intentionally vague to allow contemporary courts to decide what constitutes "public use". This ambiguity is responsible for the current situation regarding the relocation of the New Jersey Nets and the subsequent proposal to build a new arena in a residential Brooklyn neighborhood.

Bruce Ratner, who recently purchased the New Jersey Nets has publicly announced his plan to move the team to Brooklyn with the hope of building a new sports arena in the Prospect Heights neighborhood. The current plan is strongly opposed by residents and small business owners of the area. They will loose their land if the local government exercises its right of eminent domain and awards Ratner the ability to develop . The question now becomes, does a new sports arena fall under the category of "public use", as Bruce Ratner claims it does.

Not only is it ethical, the local government's exercie of eminent domain over the Brooklyn residents to allow for the construction of the arena to house the New Jersey Nets, it is proper under the law. We can make this statement be observing to facets of Ratner's argument, the economic and social benefits. According to the most recent estimate, it is believed that the development plan in its current form would displace 800 residents and small business owners. As difficult as it is to find suitable housing and property to rent in a city as populated as New York, especially in a borough as congested as Brooklyn, the temporary loss of housing still remains a temporary discomfort. Bruce Ratner recently stated that the economic benefit of a new arena far outweighs the loss caused by the temporary displacement of residents and business owners. If the plan goes through, it is estimated that more than 8,000 new jobs will be created as a result of the new arena, not to mention the possibility of spin-off businesses including fast-food diners, resturaunts, souvinir shops amongst others. The manpower alone to build an arena the size that Ratner is proposing, would require an army of construction workers and support staff. It seems fairly certain that from an economic standpoint the entire community would benefit from the new jobs being created, a benefit that would be as permanent as the arena.

Economic benefit alone should not justify the government to exercise their right of eminent domain, regardless of how much it would economically benefit the community. What places the arena in the realm of public use, is its ability to create a sense of community and community pride. Not only does the new arena and local sports team give Brooklynites something to cheer for, it gives one of the most culturally diverse boroughs in the city something everybody can cheer for. This will allow for all residents of Brooklyn, to root for a home team,. Though the residents of the Prospect Heights community may at first feel disenchanted, the development of a local arena fills a void in a community that has existed since the exodus of the Dodgers in 1957. Based on the economic and social benefits that result from the development of an arena the government should grant Bruce Ratner the land, so long as the current residents of Prospect Heights are justly compensated.