Pros And Cons Of Exercise Eminent Domain

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

If there is no other way to handle the situation, then the legal owners should be compensated monetarily for the loss of the physical property and any loss of revenue. On the Other hand, those in the judicial system claiming that eminent domain aids in the capture and conviction of criminals who could be a danger to society. They state that in many instances imposing eminent domain gives them the right to search and seize property, thus gathering evidence to convict criminals and placing the property out of their reach for future use. In conclusion, the topic of eminent domain is one that people have strong feelings about because it has long term effects on those involved. There can be many emotions involved since it involves money and

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.

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

The project was unable to obtain investments and its plans were abandoned in the end. The promises of new jobs and an increased tax revenue were all forsaken. Today, the property that was once a neighborhood for families, is a vacant property with no beneficial purpose to the community that it was meant to serve. American’s view of eminent domain, because of the Susette Kelo case, have changed dramatically since seeing the results from the economic project in New London. More Americans believe that eminent domain should only be exercised in the case of benefiting the public and not for the purpose of advancing economic activities of private parties. The case of Kelp V. New London explains how important it is as public administrators to view and interpret policies to make better decisions on how the process of implementation can better serve the needs of society for the greater

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.

Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Representative Trent Franks(R) Arizona, 8th asserted that the United States Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London threatens property rights. Consequently, Congress must remedy the effects of the Court’s decision by actively protecting small businesses, and homeowners. The Kelo decision ruled that the government’s decision to take property for the purpose of private economic development satisfies the “public use” requirement of the 5th Amendment. Nevertheless, the government did not provide just compensation to the property owners, thus, ignoring the 5th Amendment’s takings clause. Further, Franks cites Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s principal dissent with the majority’s

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,

Eminent domain disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and the economically disadvantaged. For example, in San Jose, California, 95 percent of the properties targeted for redevelopment are owned by minorities, even though only 30 percent of businesses are owned by minorities. These groups are disproportionately affected because they are easy political and economic targets. Condemnations in minority or elderly neighborhoods are often easier because they are less likely or able to resist. Areas with low property values are targeted because they cost less and the State gains financially when they replace areas with low property values with higher values. / / When an area is taken for "economic development," the

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

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

Residents of the land, now “condemned” challenged the City’s authority. When the Supreme Court decided Kelo, it began of an evolving set of tensions across the United States over defining “public use.” Many state legislatures banned eminent domain for economic development or several other specific authorized public uses. (A&M)