Missing Stuff Case Study

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.

This review focuses on the Hornbook’s chapter 10, which is about the constitutional limitations in land use controls. Specifically, this covers the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment which states that “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation ,“ the Fourteenth Amendment which extends the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the states and prohibits the state from violating the individual 's rights of due process and equal protection, the First Amendment’s freedom of expression and religion, and the related land use planning cases.

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.

Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the U.S. Supreme Court answered “yes” to the question of whether or not taking land for the sole purpose of economic improvement would fall into the realm of public use requirement set forth in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

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

Furthermore, it was found that the prohibition of use was a deprivation of any reasonable use for the parcels and eliminated the unrestricted right of use resulting in the parcels being rendered valueless. Lastly, the court determined that the parcels had in fact been “taken” by the Act and ordered that Lucas be paid just compensation in the amount of just over $1.2 million. Required compensation encompasses that the property owner to suffer a physical “invasion” of his property as well as denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land. The Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled that when regulations are in place to “prevent serious public harm”, id. at 383, 404 S.E.2d at 899, just compensation is not owed under the Takings Clause despite effect on property value. The court was unable to back the statue that construction of the two lots would threaten he public resource. Id. at 383, 404 S.E.2d at 898. The court reasoned that any regulations that deny a property owner of viable economic use of land constitutes regulatory deprivation requiring compensation. Due to Lucas having to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses for a common good and must leave the property useless then the owner had suffered a taking. It was argued that the owner’s view of deprivation of all economically beneficial use constitutes a deprivation in the

Nils Christie educates society on the concept of viewing conflicts as property and the ways in which this has impacted individuals and the legal system. It is the position of this essay that one can agree with Christie in the perception that conflicts can be viewed as property. Christie’s view as necessary or essential is debatable and will be further explored throughout the essay. Through the example of laws pertaining

Property owners have been against eminent domain since the law was enacted, though the property owner is better off now than before it was enacted. Government municipalities claim that they are taking this land to make it for public use,

Facts of the case: Decades of economic decline, led the city of New London to declare a “distressed municipality”, with the unemployment rate doubled, the city of New London approved an “economic revitalization” plan, and authorized a non-profit organization; New London Development Corporation (NDCL) to take the development plan into action. Pfizer announced a plan to build a research facility in the Fort Trumbull area, which was home to 115 private properties. These properties are being taken by New London, and just compensation is to be given to the owners. Susette Kelo (Plaintiff) sued the city of New London and NDCL (Defendant) on grounds that the ‘public use’ restriction in the Fifth Amendment was being violated by the takings of private property. The defendants argued that the development plan was an opportunity to attract new businesses opportunities to the area, although it wouldn’t be open to the public, it would serve public purpose. A first trial prohibited New London from taking the properties, but an appeal from the State Supreme Court granted permission to take the properties. A second appeal by Kelo to the Supreme Court, was affirmed by 5-4 in favor of the State Supreme Court.

Imagine that someone knocks on your door one day and says, “We’re taking your house away for governmental use.” This idea is known as eminent domain and it is a very controversial dispute in our society. Eminent domain is the governments right to seize someone’s land and home for other purposes that can ultimately benefit the whole community. Even though eminent domain is technically protected by our 5th Amendment, it is meant to be used properly and only in extreme conditions.

When Martin arrives at his beach front property, he is disturbed to learn that his property is under seizure from the local authorities under the right of eminent domain. Arguing against this appropriation, Martin shall claim that the seizure of his land is not for the public good, rather for the expanse of a private business (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2006). Olejarski (2015) states, “the principle of tangibility, which requires that direct, tangible benefits to society should outweigh agential or private interests” (p. 370). Moreover, the building of a beach side resort does not innately provide tangible benefits to a community as much as it does for the private interest of a business. Martin has a case against the local government’s abusive definition of eminent domain and should move to dismiss the procurement of his

The issue with the beach house may be difficult to triumph in court because of the eminent domain. According to Kubasek, Brennan, & Brown (2012), “Under eminent domain, the government can seize property for just compensation if the purpose for doing so benefits the general welfare”. In order for Barney to triumph in court, he must prove building a Nickelodeon resort does not improve the general welfare of the community. This may be difficult due to several factors such as the community feedback, environment factors, the size of the resort, funds, etc. At this point, Barney should accept the compensation for his property at market value to avoid paying court costs, attorney fees, and or losing his property. Sometimes it is just better to make the wise choice after looking at the entire situation.

Eminent domain is the power of the government to acquire private property for public use.

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

I conducted a traffic stop on said vehicle. I spoke with the driver of the vehicle (Delao, Louie M. DOB 02/02/69), who related he was driving home from his sister's house. Delao was checked through L.E.A.D.S via dispatch and it revealed his driver's license was valid and no wants/warrants. While speaking with Delao, I observed his vehicle filled from the rear to the front with used car tires. At which time, Delao related he sells used car tires. I spoke with the female passenger of the vehicle, who provided her