I have been rather incensed the last few days. In my community of Alabaster, Alabama there is a struggle between homeowners and the Alabaster City Council/Wal-Mart.

Birmingham News Article

A group called Colonial Properties Trust wants to build a shopping center anchored by a Wal-Mart just off the interstate in Alabaster. Several homeowners do not want to sell or will not accept the price offered.
Colonial Properties Trust has successfully petitioned the city council to file condemnation proceedings against the land owned by Alabaster citizens.
The short definition of eminent domain is the right of a state to confiscate private property for public use, payment usually being made to the owners in compensation.

The city council claims that they simply cannot collect enough property taxes in their town of 24,000 to pay for all of the government they believe the citizens of Alabaster need. They need some sales taxes.
Trouble is, there aren’t enough businesses around town to generate the amount of sales taxes these politicians want.
Councilman Tommy Ryals has even said “Sometimes the good fo the many has to outweigh the greed of the few.”

This type of property siezure is tsking place all over the country. Another case being the New York Times seizing an entire city block in Manhatten.

QUESTION: Does taking property from a citizen and turning it over to for profit company or other entity qualify as 'public use'?

Has the government in general taken advantage of the 5th Amendment where it states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

QUESTION: Does taking property from a citizen and turning it over to for profit company or other entity qualify as 'public use'? No, and there are fights going on all over the country on this, with the tide slowly turning...

Castle Coalition

Has the government in general taken advantage of the 5th Amendment where it states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" Taken advantage? Almost ignored is a better description. Between condmenation proceedings where the standard of "public use" is "satisfied" by higher property tax revenues, to the widespread "taking" of property value via environmental restrictions, the massive governmental assault on privately owned real property is a huge problem.

I have to agree that this case seems to be a grotesque abuse of government power. In general, I would think that "eminent domain" should be restricted to cases in which there is a "clear and present danger" to the public if the government does not use this very seductive and dangerous power. Each case needs to be considered individually, with the government bearing the burden of proof.

So private citizens wanting to keep their homes are being called "greedy"? I'm sure Wal-Mart has nothing but the most altruistic motives.

Florida passed a law this year that charges $1 to all mobile homes in rental parks. This $1 goes toward a fund that is used to help displaced mobile home owners when the park they are living in is sold for development.

So not only is the government saying, "you might get displaced" they are also making the mobile home owners pay for it.

Amazing.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who knows about the Castle Coalition. Granted, I just learned about it because of the situation where I live.

Beladonna, is that a monthly tax on mobile homes?

Yearly, DTOM. Mobile home taxes are due every December. I know that's not a lot of money - it's just the principle behind it.

Since I'm not familiar with the details of the Florida mobile home tax, I could be way off on this, but:

here, people rent their spaces in the mobile home park. They may own their doublewide, but the space itself is merely rented or leased. As a result, the mobile home park owner may sell out from under them, even without an "eminent domain / gov't thievin'" involved. Perhaps the fund is primarily intended to benefit those folks?

Of course, having the fund in place also makes it politically easier to pull the eminent domain game on a park, since now there's a "safety net."

Entirely unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment clearly states that property may only be taken for PUBLIC use, and last time I checked Walmart was a corporation, and therefore the taking of property with the intent to resell to private groups is highly unconstitutional and I can assure you there will be many more court cases on this subject.