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. 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). There is many people affected by eminent domain. …show more content…
There is much more civilized manners of going about obtaining land. This could include negotiation. If the government wants land they should not take citizens lands that they have worked for, maybe for most of their lives to obtain. I do not see this as fair or civilized. The only time that I believe it is acceptable to have eminent domain would be when it is being used for military use (Iowa Web). Without eminent domain there would be no government owned buildings or property. There would also be no roads built, which would mean that there would be no driving. There would also be no airports available for people who need to travel. And this means that there would not be a strong government in the area that it is being made (Eminent Web). The way that people are being paid for the land that is being taken is by a “fair market value” of what the land costs (Eminent Web). I believe that the way land owners should be paid for the land should be having a land appraisal completed to see how much land is actually worth and then negotiate from there. They should be paid for the land, and also should have the help to find new land to either live on or farm on (Iowa
Eminent domain in definition is “the right or power of public purposes without the owner’s consent
While the Government holds complete authority over the owner's property, they guarantee fair and adequate compensation for the owner in the event which he or she forced out of their property - this is the law. As well as offering fair and adequate compensation, the Government may not take or begin construction on the property until definite arrangements have been made for payments (Sargent and Wallace 6-9). However, landowners are not always forced off of their property. Many times the families living in these areas were moved because of the tremendous property damage, flood damage, or the fact that their land interferred with government property (BonaLaw 1). When land is purchased through the Government the landowner is offered “Just Compensation,” meaning that the owners of the property will be offered the highest selling price that their land will sell for (Sargent and Wallace
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
The main argument presented by O’Conner involved the Constitution on how the citizens have protection from the government abusing their power against eminent domain. She presented an argument on how it’s like a reverse Robin Hood because the rich take from the poor and give back to the rich. If the City of New London was to be allowed to do this that other cities all over the United States would be doing the same and that this would become the norm giving homeowners no rights and no protection against this happening. Homeowners would then be given the sense that no private property is safe from eminent domain seizures.
According to the facts, it seems that the sentiment of John (Cougar) Mellencamp's hit in the 1984 fueled the controversies basing on the court’s decision on June 23, 2005. The ruling stated that the local government or federal government was entitled to exercise eminent dominant rules to enable them acquire private property and utilize it for purposes of economic development. “Eminent domain also referred to as condemnation, is the act of taking private property and making it public property by the local governing authority, state, or federal government” (Bradley 65). The private property taken away is converted to public property for public use.
There was of course a reason why the whites wanted to take the land from the Native Americans and why the humans wanted to take the land from the Na’vi. Gold, which is of course very valuable, was discovered on Cherokee land in 1828. Now, not only did the settlers want this land, but the miners did as well. This caused a greater demand for the Cherokee’s land than ever before. It is similar in the movie “Avatar”. The humans are relentless, and will stop at nothing to take the land from the Na’vi people. They want the land for mining a very profitable mineral, that can be worth up to $40 million per kilogram, called Unobtanium.
In 1823, in the case of Johnson v. M'Instosh, the argument was between two men who both held titles to the same piece of land. M'Intosh's was sold to him by the government while Johnson's was sold to him by the Plankeshaw tribe. Chief Justice Marshall ruled the land did not belong to the tribe in the first place, so they did not have the right to sell it to Johnson. The law stated that the Native Americans did not actually own the land, only the rights to live on it, and that the discovering nation was the only one allowed to sell the land. This law is not only demeaning, but outrageously inconsiderate towards the Native American tribes who should have been given full rights to the land in the first place.
What would you do if you were offered millions of dollars for your land? Yes that right, the Indian tribes were moved out thanks to the Indian removal act of 1830. These Indian tribes were living in Louisiana. After the war of 1812 ended, the U.S. had purchased Louisiana from France. After exploring the land they chose to kick the Indian tribes forcefully because for the things they accomplished in the past. That’s what lead to the Indian removal act of 1830. The Indian removal act of 1830 was not justified because the Indians claimed their land first, the U.S. treated the Indians poorly, and it overall helped out the government.
To remain in the positive area of eminent domain, most of the time this law is not used until the last possible resort. Many opportunities are given to a person or land owner to take compensation in various amounts and give up the land. It’s not something that happens after five minutes of the arrival of the government. It is part of a process and in most areas that process involves a vote by the elected officials in the area, which includes the residents of the area being affected by it. The negative area is easy to see. Part of the Bill of Rights states that “restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime” (Bill of Rights). That means that the army can’t force you to put some soldiers up in your house for the night. Eminent domain is an extension of that action. The government is taking the property and using it as they see fit to use. In most areas eminent domain simply showed up on the books and there was never a word said about it. It was not heard of in some areas until the government used it and put it to action. In order for this to become a positive action some say that more controls and restrictions are needed to be placed upon the laws. It was a set of laws that was needed and enacted and then, as a result, many smaller government areas took advantage of it and began to abuse it. The best way to move forward may not be
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.
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.
up Cherokee lands for very few dollars. This proposal had not been approved by the
Native Americans should have their land is because, they have their ancestors souls are there.. Also they remember their history on the land.The best way for the United States for make up for injustices is to return land to Native American
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.