The Tar Heel Family Resort Development Plan

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

As a matter of fact, buildings play a very important role in the life of American people. A building can be a home where a family makes memories and survives challenges. A building can house a business that a person built from nothing and now provides a living for them and their employees. A building can be a church where people gather to worship and offer support to one another. The act of eminent domain gives the government the power to take over these

The Kelo vs City of New London case is one that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States with the issue involving eminent domain. Eminent domain is the transfer of property from one private party (Kelo) to a public party (City of New London), with proper compensation. The case brought to light the difference between what is considered to be public use and what is the best public purpose. Susette Kelo and fellow property owners owned property that was condemned by the city of New London to be used as further economic development. The properties were taken from the owners due to the fact a pharmaceutical company named Pfizer Inc, was planning to build a facility in the area which gave the New

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.

Reasoning: The court referenced Matter of Goldstein, in this matter the court reaffirmed the long-standing doctrine that the role of the Judiciary is limited in reviewing findings of blight in eminent domain proceedings. They court found that expansion of private university could qualify as a civic purpose and that the UDC actually encourages in projects by private entities. They concluded that the Project’s purpose was to promote education and academic research while providing public benefits to the local

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.

First, rezoning action is quasi-judicial in nature, subject to strict scrutiny on certiorari review. Second, a landowner who demonstrates that proposed use of the property is consistent with comprehensive plan is not presumptively entitled to such use. Third, a landowner seeking to rezone a property has burden of proving that proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and consequently burden shifts to the zoning board to demonstrate legitimate public purpose of maintaining existing zoning classification. Finally, the board is not

In the Kelo case, Legal Reasoning was prevalent in application of law to the outcome of the decision. Justice Stevens followed the guidelines that it was the courts duty to determine the wisdom of the government’s attempt to exercise eminent domain, and that the court should not allow its decision to be deviated by the hardship that one might incur when unwillingly relinquishing their home or property. The large media influence on the Kelo strengthened the importance of Legal Reasoning even more. The court found it necessary to remove all emotions involved in listening about an individual that was about to lose the home that they had lived in their entire life and make a decision that would be for the better good of the people.

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.

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

Taking is by means which the federal or state governments can enforce eminent domain or condemnation of your land or your land rights through just compensation, and fair market value, for public purposes. Meaning, that the government can physically acquire said property for public use or purpose and regulate the use or the manner in which the property is currently controlled. In the below case, Kelo v. City of New London, the term public use is loosely related to public purpose, as the focus was on economic growth for the area, to provide for increased taxes, and even additional employment opportunities. The overall benefits were to the public, but at a cost, who 's cost, the current standing residents required change, by means of uprooting there families and moving. More takings have occurred in the past decade that have benefited private individuals and large corporations that essentially provide more monetary gains to the economy rather than for general public use. The land taken for private benefit has primarily been that of low-income and minority individuals. (Beideman 2007, p.273) Essentially, taking from the poor to empower and strengthen the rich under the guise of economic growth and economic gain.
 In Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, nine (9) property owners challenged a redevelopment plan in which called for seizing tracts of publicly owned land, that had domiciles currently inhabited; challengers wanted build new residences, hotels and other

Eminent Domain if used correctly is a fair practice. Looking at this case, I think governments should put more rules into this law to make sure it is not used to take advantage of people. All those home were taken so that a Pharmaceutical company could bring their people here to live which in-turn would help the community. In the end they did not come. It was total waste of effort. In this case Eminent Domain was take advantage of because of a hypothetical that private corporation could help a community. It should not have been used in the first place. Eminent Domain should stick with only being used only for community efforts such as highways, hospital, efforts the community of that city.

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.

With the private waters, Mr. Robert gets affected from it both ways. He manages 4,300 acres of marsh so knows what the land owners are fighting for, and he also knows what the fisherman are fighting for. For the land owners, they get taxed on their property whether it is land or water. With still paying taxes for the property that is water, the state wanted to say it is legal for everyone to come on your water and be able to fish. Well the land owners got mad because they were trying to still make them pay taxes on the sections of water they own even though they were making it legal for people to come fish. When they brought this problem to court, it created more problems for the ones using the leases to make a living. For instance, the ones farming oysters on private lands, but paying a lease on it, would not get their lease renewed because of the problems that they brought to court. This would leave hundreds of fishermen, shrimpers, and the ones collecting oysters without a place to go anymore. He said that it is not much in effect to the shrimpers right now, but it is coming. When the land owners start charging shrimpers to just pass through their land, it will cost them much of what could have been