The Pros And Cons Of Eminent Domain

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

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.

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 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 Kelo ET. AL. v. City of New London ET. AL., 545 U.S. 469 (2005) challenged every citizen’s idea of how far the government could go in determining what is considered the public good with regard to taking private property (Land) and giving it to a developer, using the “Taking Clause” of the fifth amendment of the US Constitution. In 1997, Susette Kelo bought a house in New London Connecticut overlooking the Thames river and view of the Atlantic Ocean coast line. But in 1998, the Phizer Corporation decided that they were going to build a research facility, which Ms. Kelo’s property was part, in New London. Phizer briefed and received city council approval on their plans for the facility and the land required, then they came together to take

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.

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

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.

Eminent domain is the power that the government has to take private property for public or private use. It is defined by the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution which states the “right of people to not be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of the law”. When the government uses eminent domain, they must pay a fair price for the property taken, however, this leads to many disputes and issues. For example, if a city wants to knock down an old neighborhood of houses to build new condominiums, they need compensation. Without compensation, it is written in the Constitution that it would be prohibited. Although Republicans will normally support eminent domain if it is beneficial financially, they have and are trying to limit

158). By applying this theory to the hypothetical, it is an ethical decision to seize the property from the farmers. The decision to take the land from the farmers and give to the local Indian tribe for gambling will result in decreased unemployment rates and increased revenue. While the farmers may suffer with a sentimental loss of their families’ land, they will be compensated for the cost. With weighing the costs to the farmers against the benefits to the town and community as a whole, it is in the best interest to exercise eminent domain.

One of the rules that could come into play here is the Takings Clause included in the Fifth Amendment. The Takings Clause allows the government to take private property for public purposes through eminent domain or condemnation proceedings. This clause does specify that there must be an appropriate amount of compensation

The use of eminent domain power is used to promote economic development, especially in urban area of the United States leaving this to be a very controversial topic even in present day. In most circumstances when eminent domain used for the public good projects intended for the good such as highways, bridges, schools, and even government buildings. This policy pertain to every federal, state, local governments and it does not require very much constitutional recognition and is usually considered an attribute to the sovereign law makers in power. There have been many cases that have been brought up against the government in an attempt to regulate the power of the governments use to seize private property. Such a political push to reform eminent domain laws, including the regulation of compensation, hold outs, relocation assistance to minimize the excessive taking of private land. Many cities across the United States

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.

Acting in good faith telling buyers all known conditions of the property would be in the best interest of the real estate owner to avoid legal ramifications. That way a buyer would have the option of choosing if they want to purchase property where a murder took place instead of being misled by the seller. From the legal perspective a murder that happens in a home do not constitute a material defect under the real estate law. However, the stigma associated with property where a horrible crime has taken place does lower the market value of that property. For this reason state laws mandate certain disclosures requirements to encourage sellers of real estate to comply with disclosure requirements to help buyers in evaluating the property that’s