Eminent Domain Of Economic Development

As a matter of fact, buildings play a very important role in the life of American people. A building can be a home where a family makes memories and survives challenges. A building can house a business that a person built from nothing and now provides a living for them and their employees. A building can be a church where people gather to worship and offer support to one another. The act of eminent domain gives the government the power to take over these

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.

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

In 2005 one of the most divisive cases we had ever heard on the Supreme Court occurred—Kelo v. City of New London. After a decade of the 5-4 decision I still get questions about this case. By far eminent domain has been one of most complex and controversial aspects of in our nation’s history.

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.

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,

Facts: The city of New London approved a new development plan to build a new hotel and marina in hopes of revitalizing its economy and infrastructure. New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit entity planned to use the state approved $5.35-million-dollar bond issue to purchase the land needed to build. With approval from the state the NLDC began purchasing properties from willing sellers and use eminent domain to acquire the rest of the properties. Condemnation proceedings later began and petitions argued that they were condemned because they were located in the development area. The Superior Court agreed and granted a permanent restraining

Sports teams, or professional athletic organization, are extremely important institutions within a city or region. They can help connect people with places, and through this loyalty, a sense of civic pride can be seen. Furthermore, the multi-billion dollar industry sports produces effects that can impact individuals and communities. In recent years dozens of new sports stadiums have been built throughout the country, with major funding coming from public subsidies. The aim of this paper is to analyze the positive and negative impacts that come with these subsidies.

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.

The case of Kelo vs. City of New London generated major controversy that reached its way up to the Supreme Court. In addition, it has been the first major case involving eminent domain since 1984. Eminent domain is defined as “the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation”. The City of New London approved a development plan in 2000 that was “projected to create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city”, according to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. In almost all economic development, development agents purchase property from willing sellers. When it comes to property owners who are a little more reluctant bartering over their

Proponents of subsidizing sports stadiums is a great decision because the economic impact it will have on the community is great for two main reasons. First, sports stadiums are massive construction projects. In fact, one could compare them to a medieval cathedral in their attempts to dominate a skyline and inspire pride in one’s city And, just like these cathedrals, they are very expensive, and massive building projects that would require many years of hard painstaking labor. For example, the proposed stadium for the Los Angeles Rams in Inglewood, California, was predicted to cost $3 billion and add 22,000 construction jobs to the economy of Los Angeles, California. Although construction jobs do eventually disappear once a stadium is constructed once the games begin, so does the massive consumer spending. For example, more than 3.5 million people saw the St. Louis Cardinals play at Busch Stadium in 2015.

In the United States, new sports stadiums are commonly seen as a vital part of the redevelopment of a city having a great economic growth with the production of jobs and a positive income builder. After this, the owners of the pro sports teams with millions and millions of dollars of subsidies for the construction of new stadiums and arenas and expect these facilities to generate economic benefits exceeding these subsidies by large margins. However, a growing body of fact indicates that professional sports facilities, and the franchises they are home to, may not be engines of economic benefit anywhere claims Sachse, “. In reality, sports franchises typically account for a very small proportion of the total economic output of the cities in which they reside.” Some economical studies on the amount of income and employment in US cities find no evidence of positive economic benefits associated with past sports facility construction and some studies find that professional sports facilities and teams have a net negative economic impact on income and employment. It just shows that these results suggest that at best, professional sports teams and facilities provide non-pecuniary benefits like civic pride, and a greater sense of community, along with consumption benefits to those attending games and following the local team in the media; at worst, residents

   Abstract:  The Stadium  construction boom continues, and taxpayers are being forced to pay for new high tech stadiums they don’t want.  These new stadiums create only part-time jobs.  Stadiums bring money in exclusively for professional leagues and not the communities.  The teams are turning public money into private profit.  Professional leagues are becoming extremely wealthy at the taxpayers expense.  The publicly-funded stadium obsession must be put to a stop before athletes and coaches become even greedier.  New stadiums being built hurt public schools, and send a message to children that leisure activities are more important than basic education.  Public money

Kelly interprets the rationale behind public use requirement and eminent domain while arriving at two conclusions.The article distinguishes between the government and private individuals on terms that while the former has to go through eminent domain to acquire previously private property in order to maintain transparency , the latter can resort to secret buying through some undisclosed agents.The second difference lies in involvement of corruption albeit not in orthodox eminent domain rules but on the side of the private owners in order to influence the taking process. A close to home example would be Indian landowners who were threatened by the Colonial rules of eminent domain and who established relationships with the latter so that no harm would be inflicted.Later, rapid economic development and urbanisation increased the exercise of eminent domain by the Indian government. Article 19 and Article 31 of the constitution recognised the above mentioned characteristics and granted it as a right.It is currently controlled by The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,