The Tar Heel Family Resort Development Plan

840 Words Aug 7th, 2015 4 Pages
For every situation that Martin had to deal with, the battle against eminent domain in regard to his coastal property is where there is a disagreement. Although, the Kelo case gave precedence to the confiscation of personal property for economic development, the party that is executing the condemnation must prove that the confiscation will lead to an economic development that will benefit the common good. Within the proposal of the Tar Heel Family Resort development plan, there is no indication that the development would be for public use. The only broad stroke benefit it may apply to the public is the creation of jobs, which, if the judge uses a broad visionary approach to the concept of eminent domain, the resort may succeed. However, if the judge uses a narrow scope of the term, and that eminent domain will only hold if it’s for public accommodations, then Martin will succeed. The two categories are further detailed by Hoyman and McCall:
The first category, the “narrow” justification of eminent domain authority, means that the power is used for “traditional” public use (Epstein 2005), such as water and sewer systems, prisons, roads, hospitals, government office buildings, and other similar projects. The second category, the “broad” interpretation of permissible eminent domain use, includes private redevelopment projects that arguably would benefit the public at large (Malloy 2008), by bringing jobs and revenue to a particular jurisdiction (P. 886).
Martin’s attorney…
Open Document