Constitutional Limitations Of Land Use Controls

there have been a couple of cases that raised the questions of when eminent domain should be

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.

One of America’s greatest conservation achievements is the Wilderness Act of 1964. Fifty-two years later, this act has a legacy to withhold. A legacy that meant something in 1964 and remains the same today: to protect unspoiled land. Even though, through this act millions of acres have been conserved, the key word is continue. That is why America should pass laws to preserve the wilderness before developers spoil them.

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

In 1942 the Supreme Court, in Wickard v. Filburn, ruled unanimously in favor of restricting an Ohio farmer's acreage allotment to farm wheat grown for his own personal use. Congress’s authority to regulate local activities was questioned in reference to the 10th Amendment’s claim to states’ reserved powers (Oyez, 2015). However, Congress’s invocation of the Commerce Clause provided a loophole by which the case was settled. This sort of encroachment on personal matters was precisely the fear of Federalists when creating the Bill of Rights and in turn resulted in the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment was a precautionary measure to protect states from exploitative interpretations of The Constitution’s granted federal powers, and added a necessary provision to a system of mixed sovereignty in which each government has direct authority over citizens within the limits of said powers.

Eminent domain is the inherent power of the government to take over a citizen's property for public use without the owner's consent. Initially, this public policy originated in the Middle Ages throughout the world. It became part of the British common law before reaching the United States where it was then illustrated in the US Constitution in 1791 (Britannica: eminent domain). The Fifth Amendment granted the federal government the right

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

The taking of land refers “to government seizure, regulation, or intrusion on private property for which the owner is entitled to compensations under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). There is also regulatory takings, which is the “newly enforceable restrictions on the use of ones property, such as a newly adopted restrictions on building in certain areas of wetlands.” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). All over the world governments take private land from its owners to benefit the public. In the United States it is called emanated domain, and has been a controversial issue till this day. By evaluating the case of Lucas V South Carolina Coastal Council of 1992 and evaluating the two types of regulatory action that automatically trigger compensation as takings; the dissent object to the takings approach laid out by the majority in this case; cities ability to take private property and transfer it to private developers for the sake of economic revitalization; the ethical issues surrounding the principle of using eminent domain to take away the property ownership rights of individuals; and the feeling I would have if the government was to take my land.

The power of eminent domain was originally solely exclusive to the federal government. The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment extended this power to the states, but Supreme Court decisions in the 1870s “refused to extend the just compensation requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment,” and consequently, abuse of the power was common (Jost). Twenty eight years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the “just compensation” clause was applied to the states by Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, in which the Bill of Rights was declared to also apply to the actions of state governments in an attempt to stop the series of uncompensated takings and other abuses. These abuses continue

The project was unable to obtain investments and its plans were abandoned in the end. The promises of new jobs and an increased tax revenue were all forsaken. Today, the property that was once a neighborhood for families, is a vacant property with no beneficial purpose to the community that it was meant to serve. American’s view of eminent domain, because of the Susette Kelo case, have changed dramatically since seeing the results from the economic project in New London. More Americans believe that eminent domain should only be exercised in the case of benefiting the public and not for the purpose of advancing economic activities of private parties. The case of Kelp V. New London explains how important it is as public administrators to view and interpret policies to make better decisions on how the process of implementation can better serve the needs of society for the greater

During the 1790’s, Jefferson Republicans had celebrated the will of the people prompting federalist to worry that popular sovereignty would result in “tyranny of the majority”(Henretta, Hinderaker, Edwards Self 242). If state legislatures enacted statutes infringing on the property rights of wealthy citizens, Federalist judges vowed to void them. Marshall was determined to protect the property rights and went against the constitution. In the conflict of Fletcher versus Peck, Marshall expanded the era. With this, the supreme court ruled that a grant to a private land company was a contract within the meaning of the contract clause of the constitution. The property rights of 1810 altered the governments for the better because it gave resourceful and economic goods to individuals, associations, and

In this case, Mr. Brandt had filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government for "the right-of-way crossing" his land had extinguished after the cessation of the railroad activity in the corridor. The Government had argued that this right was created by the Federal General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 and should be valid on the gounds that the railroad line was affirmed to be abandoned. While reviewing this case, it must be determined whether or not that the Government, under this Act, had retained an interest in the abandoned railroad right-of-way.

Individual rights versus the good of the community, is an issue that American has struggled with for a long time. In addition, the case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council Mr. Lucas contended that his two beautiful but fragile beachfront properties located in Barrier Islands were made worthless by the passage of the Beachfront Management Act. According to the Supreme Court, the Coastal Council was simply using its “police powers” to “protect our state’s unstable coastline from further erosion caused by construction.” (South Carolina Tribune)

The city of New London was in an economic depression and came up with a plan to buy properties and make it commercial, residential and a recreational element to it. They city was able to buy most of the properties but some landowners refused to sell their property. So the city used element of domain power to take the property. Kelo one of the landowners decided to sue. Their main argument was that the cities plan didn’t involve public use, which is what element of domain is used for. The Supreme Court ruled that the cities plan had public benefit so they upheld the cities decision to use element of domain and took the property.

One of the primary instances, and landmark cases, that spurred more debates on imminent domain is the Kelo vs City of New London case. “In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court held that “economic development” constituted a “public use” that justified the taking of private property through eminent domain.” (R—N.Y, 2016). Property rights have always been a challenge in every civilization. This case garnered a lot of interest from the media and in turn that of the rest of U.S residents as it shocked the nation. The case is related to a development project that the city wanted to undertake to make the best use of the land in the area. The town of New London, a small city within Connecticut, experienced downward spiraling economy when