Essay on Eminent Domain

When should a city or state use their eminent domain powers? Over the past few years

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

The fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows the government to take land if they provide compensation to the owner of the property. Eminent domain is not only a federal power. It can be done by the state and city because of the mirror exercise.

Eminent Domain is the government's right under the Fifth Amendment to acquire privately owned property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse. Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's determined to be fair market value. In recent years, there has been much debate over the appropriateness of eminent domain, and further its legality in specific instances. The government is allowed to seize personal property for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good". There have been many cases brought up against the government in attempt to regulate the government's power in seizing private property. There is a political push for reform to the eminent

Land rights has been a big topic in recent years, especially in British Columbia where all of the government proposed sites for projects like the LNG pipelines, the site C dam or hydraulic fracturing, falls on aboriginal territory. Simultaneously water rights have gathered international attention due to protests towards the North Dakota Access pipeline, the Muskrat falls and other various pipelines and proposed dams. All this begs the question given that aboriginal rights to water have existed from time immemorial, what rights still exist regardless of the government attempts to extinguish these inherent rights and are they being upheld. With respect to British Columbia, I will attempt to understand this question by looking at the historical different approaches to water rights, the B.C. governments prior allocation system and the federal water policy to determine what scope of rights Aboriginal have in water governance.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

Eminent Domain was even used in World War II; “During World War II, the Lands Division oversaw the acquisition of more than 20 million acres of land. Property was transformed into airports and naval stations , war materials manufacturing and storage , proving grounds, and a number of other national defense installations.” This use of Eminent Domain justified as it is clear that the clause was put into practice for the sake of the American public.

Eminent domain is when the state uses private land for public use, this could include anything roadways, pipelines, and lakes. The State of Iowa can buy the land of citizens for little cost and use them for any needs of the state. This is an unpreventable occurrence that happens (Iowa Web).

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 authors of these majority and minority opinions are quite different. Steven believes that making a city more attractive and profitable is worth using eminent domain while O’Connor believes that it makes every home and business be put in jeopardy for an unnecessary use of overused power. Although both agree that in some instances eminent domain is appropriate, they disagree on this particular case of the New London community.Before I began to read this case I made my own assumptions about eminent domain. Although I believe that it is not alright for eminent domain to be applied to all cases, I do believe that eminent domain is necessary in this case. The city was very apparently deteriorating and it is part of the cities job to make the community appealing again. Like it was stated, the population has not been as low as 24,000 residents since 1920. That was over 50 years ago. I may not always agree with using eminent domain in all instances but to make a city more profitable and more appealing to residents seems to me like a good use of property. Just compensation is something I may have a problem with. From what I have heard, the government does not always give the

The ideology behind what private property represents and conveys through the theories of both Locke and Marx's results in contrasting views. Locke heavily stresses the blending of labor and common land to create private property to increase one’s wealth. Liberty and livelihood under Locke’s theory is tied to the ability of an individual to control the use of their private property. Marx’s theory strongly contends that the bourgeoisie has gained control of the profit making private properties leaving the working class in a stage of exploitation. Marx’s conclusion then is to set private property in the hands of the people in hopes of creating universal economic equality. Respectively each thesis places governments, labour and religion