Kelo v New London is substantially different because of several accounts. First there was an unwilling seller after agreements had already been made. Secondly, economic considerations formed the foundation of the Kelo v New London. Third, though confiscation was made for economic purposes using the guide/guise of "the greater good," government became the mediator in the forcible transfer of private property from one owner to another.
The Supreme Court summary of Kelo v New London stated in part that the "respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell."
In the scenario presented about Sheffield, the health and safety of the community is at stake. In New London, it was not. Kelo v New London was about governmental confiscation of private property for economic development.
In Alabama, there is an exception for blighted property damaging to public health and safety.
S.B. 68 – Approved by Governor 8/3/2005
* Prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development, generating tax revenue or for the transfer of property from a private party to another.
* Provides exception for the taking of blighted property.
H.B. 654 – Approved by Governor 4/25/2006
* Prohibits the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment without the consent of the owner.
* Stipulates that blighted property is that which is damaging to public health and safety.
Code of Alabama, 1975
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/18-1B-2.htmSection 18-1B-2
Limitations on condemnation.
(a) Neither the State of Alabama, nor any of its departments, divisions, agencies, commissions, corporations, boards, authorities, or other entities, nor any agency, corporation, district, board, or other entity organized by or under the control of any municipality or county in the state and vested by law to any extent whatsoever with the power of eminent domain may condemn property for the purpose of nongovernmental retail, office, commercial, residential, or industrial development or use; provided, however, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the exercise of the powers of eminent domain by any county, municipality, housing authority, or other public entity based upon a finding of blight in an area covered by any redevelopment plan or urban renewal plan pursuant to Chapters 2 and 3 of Title 24, or to the exercise of eminent domain by or for the benefit of public utilities or other entities engaged in the generation, transmission, or distribution of telephone, gas, electricity, water, sewer, or other utility products or services. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit the state or a municipal or county governing body from exercising the power of eminent domain for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, or operating streets and roadways, government buildings, or park and recreation facilities.
(b) Property condemned by an entity described in subsection (a), if not ever used for the purpose or purposes for which it was condemned or for some other public use, that is subsequently determined to be sold, shall be first offered for sale to the person or persons from whom the property was condemned, or his or her known or ascertainable heirs or assigns, at the price which was paid for the property, less such amount, if any, as the person shall show by good and sufficient documentation to be the amount of income and transaction taxes, if any, actually paid in connection therewith, and if the offer shall not be accepted within 90 days from the date it is made, the property may be sold to any other person or persons but only at public sale after legal notice is given.
(Act 2005-313, 1st Sp. Sess., §3.)