Eminent Domain Analysis

Eminent domain in definition is “the right or power of public purposes without the owner’s consent

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.

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 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 concept of eminent domain is the condemnation of property for the public’s well being or good for private use is not the original intention and should not be used in this way. Private corporations and individuals are using the initial purpose was for the acquisition of land for the building of railroads and highways. The use of eminent domain has changed over the years by law, government and legal interpretations. These changes have allowed private interest groups to petition the state and local governments for eminent domain to be declared on property where the owners refuse to sell. Each states position on eminent domain is decided by the legislature and the voters of the state for use by private corporations and individuals.

There is much more civilized manners of going about obtaining land. This could include negotiation. If the government wants land they should not take citizens lands that they have worked for, maybe for most of their lives to obtain. I do not see this as fair or civilized. The only time that I believe it is acceptable to have eminent domain would be when it is being used for military use (Iowa Web).

The Court rebutted with the fact that economic development is a recognized public use, and that sometimes the greatest benefit for the public is to have the land developed by an agency other than a government agency (Kelo v. New London, 2005). The Petitioner's countered that without such a “bright-line” rule a government could take private land and transfer it to someone else who would put the property to more use and therefore increase the tax revenue of the property. The Court argued that may be true in cases where there was no clear development plan, but in this case the City had developed an integrated development plan (Kelo v. New London, 2005). Finally, the Petitioner’s argued that if a government was going to exercise eminent domain that the public should be guaranteed with some “reasonable certainty” that the proposed benefits would in fact come to pass. For this the Court refused to speculate to the effectiveness of the City’s plan, and argued that once the Court had determined if an economic development plan was a “public use” as laid out in the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, that their job was complete (Kelo v. New London,

158). By applying this theory to the hypothetical, it is an ethical decision to seize the property from the farmers. The decision to take the land from the farmers and give to the local Indian tribe for gambling will result in decreased unemployment rates and increased revenue. While the farmers may suffer with a sentimental loss of their families’ land, they will be compensated for the cost. With weighing the costs to the farmers against the benefits to the town and community as a whole, it is in the best interest to exercise eminent domain.

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

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:

Eminent Domain is the inherent power of the state to take over a citizen's property for public use without the owner's consent. This is commonly done when the acquisition of property is needed for the completion of a project. These projects can be for transportation such as highways or bridges or even for buildings such as schools or government buildings. This excerpt states that ''The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power.''160 Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government. It requires no

The country not only seizes private property for the land, but also for water. In the city of Laurinburg, North Carolina, the city wants to use eminent domain to take a farmer’s water supply and give it to a clutch factory. The city wants to pay the farmer $12,000 for three parcels of land. According to the farmer, the land could produce crops worth $200,000 a year. The county then wants to construct wells to support the FCC America LLA, suck out all of the water, but only pay for three small well sites. This is a classic case of the United States government using eminent domain, to benefit private industries (Jennings). Some states are implementing laws to help protect land owners from eminent domain.

Carson’s rights to fight against the seizing of his property are a notice, hearing, and remedies. Prior to any governmental action to exercise its right of eminent domain, the government must negotiate in good faith with the landowner for an acceptable price for the land. In most cases the government will notify the landowner of serving a notice of intent. The notice would also consist of the property parameters, proposed use of the land, and a offer for the purchase. If an agreement can not be met, further court action will take place. As a landowner he has the right to oppose both the proposed taking and the amount of compensation offered. Ultimately, if administrative appeals fail, the landowner may petition in court, under the auspices