Eminent Domain Case Study

Should the United States government be allowed to seize property from you without any explanation or compensation? That is a question many people in the U.S. are asking themselves today. Eminent domain should not be allowed in the United States for several reasons. People own buildings that they do not want destroyed because they are family dwellings or places of business. People have money invested in the buildings and the property they sit on and do not feel it is right to lose it to the government. There are also the property owners who want to protect their property because it has been handed down in their family for many generations.

Different areas of the private sector took control of the racial segregation. Areas such as real estate, banks, labor, and toxic waste locations have participated in some way to continue the segregation and inferiority of people of color. “African Americans and other communities of color are often victims of land-use decision making that mirrors the power arrangements of the dominant society” (Bullard [1994]2004:269). The land-use decisions are used by the real estate industry. The real estate industry along with the bank industry have worked together in order to make it almost impossible for people of color to acquire their own homes. When individuals of color do obtain their own homes the real estate industry corrals them all into one zone. Then the banks charge homeowners in these zones high interest rates on the mortgages needed to maintain their home ownership. “Zoning is probably the most widely applied mechanism to regulate urban land use in the United States” (Bullard [1994]2004:269). When people of color are corralled into a neighborhood the quality of the neighborhood is diminished. The

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.

Question: Is the policy of eminent domain providing for the public welfare, through the taking of privately owned property, using a rightful procedure involving due process and just compensation as it was intended to do when the policy was founded?

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

This may seem controversial as some people may not be able to understand how public parks benefit anyone. Public parks may seem purely aesthetic and ornamental, adding no true value to society, therefore some would argue that the government has no justification for taking their property.

The first time I heard about eminent domain was when the State of Iowa wanted to move my family’s house to build more road way. This is something that affected my family. There was a constant struggle on whether or not we had to rebuild a new house or whether we were ever going to be paid enough for the land we did have. I know where I stand on this issue. I know how people are affected by this.

Martin had been a blundering law enforcement officer. He chose to resign after numerous years as a deputy in a little North Carolina town and as a criminologist in Raleigh. Martin possesses an interest property in the mountain district of North Carolina and additionally a second home in the shore of North Carolina (Property Case Study). He conveyed three properties issues to me to advise him on. As Martin sister in Christ and his lawful counsel, I must exhort him that there are laws, guidelines and regulations that identify with his property circumstance he is confronting. Here is my evaluation of Martin’s three properties (Mountain, Coastal, and Personal Property).

A majority of my fellow judges’ decisions paralleled my thoughts on the matter, and it was determined that New London was able to legally acquire through the process of eminent domain. Since the 2005 supreme court case, other instances of eminent domain controversy have arisen, and the people of the city of New London has not reaped any sort of tangible benefits. With these new cases, and the subsequent development, or lack thereof in New London my opinion on the matter has changed entirely. It is my belief now that potential and realized economic development does not constitute approval for eminent domain action.

In the eminent domain hypothetical, my town has been outsourcing most of the manufacturing to cheaper overseas labor markets in China and India. There has been an increased demand for revenue for police, fire, schools, and other essential infrastructure. Because of the high unemployment rate in the town, young people are not returning after finishing college. This had led to a downward economical spiral. There is a small Indian reservation on the outside of town. The state laws now permit full Las Vegas-style gambling but only on Indian reservations. The town council requests my position that would take a large amount of private land owned by local farmers and give it to the tribe. As required by the Constitution, the farmers would be compensated

Many people may debate whether or not the government should be able to take property by eminent domain for the public good. For instance the TransCanada Pipeline. Some may also debate whether or not it is an abuse of the 5thAmendment.

Eminent domain is where the government has the power to take a private property and convert that into a public property, but the government can only exercise this power if they provide the just amount of compensation to those property owners. This is the main concept however each state has its own laws. In Missouri it’s now a little stricter when they revised their laws in 2006 to make it more balanced to protect the private property rights of an owner and as well as the need for cities to eliminate the blight conditions. The term “public use” differs between states for what a government can take and use for public use purposes. In the state of Missouri the term “public use” can be taking land to build public roads, to taking land for use by private railroad companies, and to taking land to build private businesses to spur the economic growth (Missouri law review 1). The government can only use eminent domain where there are blight conditions, which in Missouri; blight is property which constitutes an economic or social liability or menace to public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use (Law of Missouri 2). Most states have the just compensation towards the private property owners as giving them compensation that is market value for their property. Missouri generally appoints three commissioners to report of any damages that the owner suffers as a result of the

Eminent Domain is the actual inherent power of the government to take over a citizens’ property for public use without the owner’s consent. This was initially a part of public policy that originated in the middle ages throughout the world. It was adopted by into British Common law before reaching the Americas where it was then established into the U.S. Constitution in 1791 called the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This grants the federal government the right to exercise eminent domain, provided protect to citizens, and protect the property rights of citizens. Shortly after the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment was introduced making the federal guarantee of “just compensation” applicable to the states. Property owners are offered the fair market value for their property and if they

The land is public property in Ethiopia [Gebreselassie 2006]; both rural and urban lands are made available to the investors at a competitive price on a Lease-Hold basis. The Lease or Rental value of land and fixed assets may transfer to the third party, but not the land. Incidentally, about the capital requirement, to assist investors to decide to invest on their own or jointly with the domestic investors the minimum capital required for a single project has been apprehended. Under the Investment Proclamation No.769/2012 of Financial Statements Preparation, any foreign investor to be allowed to invest in the country in conformance to this proclamation, shall be required to allocate the minimum capital of 200,000 US$ for a single project