Essay On Eminent Domain

bankruptcy, the government’s right to initiate eminent domain for public good is a necessary evil.

America's government system is powerful. One way the government flexes their muscles is through eminent domain. Eminent domain is the government's power to seize land from one and give it over to another. Most times, eminent domain is used to improve the city. There are a lot of tensions between whether eminent domain is morally right or even constitutional.

Amongst topics of conversation regarding eminent domain, one will find regulatory usage of land, seizing of land for public use, and the most controversial of late, the seizing of land from a private owner and giving it to a more economically beneficial, often politically connected private owner. Kelo v New London (US 2005), has prompted dozens of proposals to reform eminent domain practices legislatively. Most of these proposals would restrict the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private individual to another. It is one thing to have a city claim property to further the development of the city by building roads, schools, etc. It is another thing altogether for the government to seize a property so as to gain money from higher taxation. For many years, however, courts have read the public-use restraint broadly, enabling governments to take property from one owner, often small and powerless, and transfer it to another, often large and politically connected, all in the name of economic development, urban renewal, or job creation.

"Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one may be deprived of it except when public necessity..."

Imagine getting a visitor at your front door, and the visitor offers you a very generous amount of money for them to take you property for public use. For some people it is the property they grew up on, and for others it is the property that has been passed down through family generations. That is what happens when private property owners experience eminent domain. Eminent domain can be a wonderful thing for big companies and powerful leaders. On the other hand, people lose their homes, or perhaps their farmland. Those who offer eminent domain often have big plans that can benefit a community, but the huge loss here is people losing their homes. Most companies will only enforce eminent domain if they have no other choice. Other companies do it purely for themselves. Eminent domain should be used for the good of mankind, because it has the power to put some good places in this world if done correctly.

The seizure of private property by the government with compensation to the owner is known as eminent domain. The compensation that the owners receive is supposed to be fair market value. Eminent domain includes forcing citizens to sell their property for the use of private commercial development. Eminent domain comes from a moralistic culture. Those who are liberal are concerned with the greater good of the public. Liberals believe that eminent domain should be allowed, so long as those who are losing their property are compensated. Liberals believe it is okay if it is for the benefit of the public. However, conservatives are also concerned with the public. They are opposed to seizure of private property to achieve a public goal. Conservatives believe it is not right to force people to sell their property in most cases.

Besides, another point have a place is If the administration takes your property for open utilize, they should remunerate you for it. In England or US property could be seized by the government without compensation to build a road or a bridge. The goal here is to ensure no one has their property taken by the government without being properly compensated, by using this law public ask for compensation. As the country's population continued to grow, however, local governments began to place increasing controls on the use of land. Where landowners believed that these restrictions impeded their use of the property, or damaged its value, they began to argue that these restrictions also constituted a taking of their land requiring adequate

The Kelo ET. AL. v. City of New London ET. AL., 545 U.S. 469 (2005) challenged every citizen’s idea of how far the government could go in determining what is considered the public good with regard to taking private property (Land) and giving it to a developer, using the “Taking Clause” of the fifth amendment of the US Constitution. In 1997, Susette Kelo bought a house in New London Connecticut overlooking the Thames river and view of the Atlantic Ocean coast line. But in 1998, the Phizer Corporation decided that they were going to build a research facility, which Ms. Kelo’s property was part, in New London. Phizer briefed and received city council approval on their plans for the facility and the land required, then they came together to take

Would you be okay with the government taking your house and relocating you even if it meant that you got compensated for the sacrifice you are doing. This is known as eminent domain. What is eminent domain policy to be more specific? This is most often used with land property. Some that have never seen it in action will not fully understand how it truly works. Here is an example to help clarify. A highway is being made through a portion of a town and one person or family is refusing to sell their land/home. Eminent domain gives the government the right to forcibly remove the owner and cease their land even if the land owner doesn’t agree to it. The government then will, even in this case, provide compensation for the land that it takes in the

The federal government pays only “fair market value” for the property that they take, but if it can be proven that the property can later on be used for other things the buyer might pay more. When the federal government temporarily uses a person's private property, it isn’t considered taking unless the government leaves the person's private property in a bad enough shape to where it no longer has any economic value left. According to Douglas W. Kmiec in The Heritage Guide to The Constitution, owning property is not completely a natural right. I believe that even if the federal government is going to pay a just compensation to a property owner, it still shouldn’t be allowed. A property owner has no say in whether or not they want to sell their land when it comes to the federal government needing something for the use of the public. Owning a piece of property is more than just what it’s worth moneywise, it’s everything that was ever built there including

Throughout American history, the definition, allocation and protection of property rights has been one of the most controversial and combative issues. According to Armen and Demsetz (1973), “…a private property right includes the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price). If person A is not allowed to buy some rights from Person B and Person B therefore is not allowed to

Eminent domain allows for government, railroads, utility and redevelopment companies to take possession of private property for public use. Parks, military bases, distribution centers, railroads, and airports are all acceptable intended purposes to obtain private property through eminent domain. An organization or company try to obtain private property must following a specific process, according Missouri state law. First the condemner must try to obtain the property outside of court. They will need to issue a letter to the property owner which includes the following:

Taking is by means which the federal or state governments can enforce eminent domain or condemnation of your land or your land rights through just compensation, and fair market value, for public purposes. Meaning, that the government can physically acquire said property for public use or purpose and regulate the use or the manner in which the property is currently controlled. In the below case, Kelo v. City of New London, the term public use is loosely related to public purpose, as the focus was on economic growth for the area, to provide for increased taxes, and even additional employment opportunities. The overall benefits were to the public, but at a cost, who 's cost, the current standing residents required change, by means of uprooting there families and moving. More takings have occurred in the past decade that have benefited private individuals and large corporations that essentially provide more monetary gains to the economy rather than for general public use. The land taken for private benefit has primarily been that of low-income and minority individuals. (Beideman 2007, p.273) Essentially, taking from the poor to empower and strengthen the rich under the guise of economic growth and economic gain.
 In Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, nine (9) property owners challenged a redevelopment plan in which called for seizing tracts of publicly owned land, that had domiciles currently inhabited; challengers wanted build new residences, hotels and other

The government should exercise eminent domain cautiously to ensure that individual property rights are seldom taken away. In 2005, the ruling of Kelo v. City of New London “allowed state and local governments to take private property and transfer it to other private owners to promote ‘economic development’” (Somin 1). The promotion of economic development, however, is not sound reasoning to transfer private property from one private owner to the next. The only instance when this may be acceptable is when the property in mention is no longer in use. Some examples include

These days there have been many issues surrounding the topic of private property and eminent domain. I feel that eminent domain is a good way to keep the needs of the community and each person’s individual property rights balanced. Even though I believe individual property rights are more important that the needs of the community, I also believe the government sometimes has to take that property away for the better good of the community. At the same time I also understand how people feel when they talk about “NIMBY” (not in my back yard), and also about their personal needs.