Eminent Domain Case Analysis

With Massachusetts State spending on affordable housing and open space at a historic low, when considered as a percentage of the total budget, the production of dwelling units and the conservation of land have become the responsibility of local government, but cities and towns do not build housing, except in rare circumstances. As well they do not routinely buy expensive tracts of open land,

If there is no other way to handle the situation, then the legal owners should be compensated monetarily for the loss of the physical property and any loss of revenue. On the Other hand, those in the judicial system claiming that eminent domain aids in the capture and conviction of criminals who could be a danger to society. They state that in many instances imposing eminent domain gives them the right to search and seize property, thus gathering evidence to convict criminals and placing the property out of their reach for future use. In conclusion, the topic of eminent domain is one that people have strong feelings about because it has long term effects on those involved. There can be many emotions involved since it involves money and

In “New Axioms for Reading the Landscape: Paying Attention to Political Economy and Social Justice,” Don Mitchell incorporates old ideas from Peirce F. Lewis’s original “Axioms for Reading the Landscape.” At the same time, Mitchell includes new ideas into his axioms. In Axiom 1, he explains that “the landscape is not produced through ‘our unwitting autobiography’ (as Lewis describes it), but as an act of (social, not individual) will” (2007, 34). He also stresses the idea that landscape should be produced as a commodity. In contrast, Neil Smith explains the main causes behind gentrification. Smith explains how gentrification happens through a process which he calls “rent gap” (1979, 545). In gentrification, the landscape is a commodity because it loses and gains monetary value through disinvestment and investment.

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.

There is always the idea that of wanting what somebody else has. Even though, they shared a little bit, there is that need to become greedy and take all of it, that “if the natives will not join in living under their laws, the Utopians drive them out of their land they claim for themselves, and if they resist make war on them” (More 607). That these natives “leave their land idle and waste, therefore, it makes perfect sense to “forbid the use of it to others who, by the law of nature, ought to be supported by it” (More

The possesion of land has proved to greatly amplify and draw out several different stereotypes and conflicts between societies in the world 's history. From Many different accounts all over the world today there has always been a dispute over land. However other disputes shadow in that of the colonial New England settlers and the Native Americans, both virtually revolving their lives around this concept of land distribution. For the settlers it meant wealth and prosperity, for the natives it meant staying alive. William Cronon 's book, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England, illustrates the differences between these two separate societies and describes what life was like during the period of exploration and settlement in the New World. There are several other facts or opinions that one could take away from this passage, but the three main points are differences in the Colonist and Native conceptions of property, as well as how cultural stereotypes and eventual conflict emerged from mutual understanding of the land and use of property by each group.

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

Eminent domain disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and the economically disadvantaged. For example, in San Jose, California, 95 percent of the properties targeted for redevelopment are owned by minorities, even though only 30 percent of businesses are owned by minorities. These groups are disproportionately affected because they are easy political and economic targets. Condemnations in minority or elderly neighborhoods are often easier because they are less likely or able to resist. Areas with low property values are targeted because they cost less and the State gains financially when they replace areas with low property values with higher values. / / When an area is taken for "economic development," the

Through this Article, the author is showing the importance of greed. The Cherokee an Indian tribe owned Georgia as their territory, but in 1829 the gold rush resulted in Georgia. Mines in Georgia produced “300 ounces of gold a day” (Pauls). The greed of the white people seeing gold come in daily “demanded that the U.S. Congress devolve to the states the control of all real property owned by tribes and their members” (Pauls). This was approved by president Andrew Jackson with no authority the Indians were forced out of their land. Another act of greed happened when Indians in the southeast owned valuable farming land this “coveted by outsiders because they were located in prime agricultural areas and were very well developed” (Pauls). The greed

In Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), building a parking lot will increase the quantity and rate of storm-water flow from the property, thus keeping the floodplain free from the development would likely confine the pressures on Fanno Creek created by the new development. However, this was not enough for the city; the city wanted the land for itself. According to Justice Rhenquist, “the city must make some effort to quantify its findings in *396 support of the dedication it asks for” (Dolan v. City of Tigard 1994, 5). San Jose’s law does not solve the issue of increasing low-income housing, but instead harms entrepreneurs. The City of San Jose has made no effort to meet its burden to show that developers of new homes are somehow responsible for the astronomical prices of housing in the city. The law is an impediment to growth, an interference with the free market and an exceedingly expensive cost-per-unit way of integrating lower incomes into high land-value

Eminent domain is the power that the government has to take private property for public or private use. It is defined by the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution which states the “right of people to not be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of the law”. When the government uses eminent domain, they must pay a fair price for the property taken, however, this leads to many disputes and issues. For example, if a city wants to knock down an old neighborhood of houses to build new condominiums, they need compensation. Without compensation, it is written in the Constitution that it would be prohibited. Although Republicans will normally support eminent domain if it is beneficial financially, they have and are trying to limit

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.