Eminent Domain
n : the right of the state to take private property for public use; the Fifth Amendment that was added to the Constitution of the United States requires that just compensation be made.

US Constitution Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Several cities across America are using the right of Eminent Domain to buy property to sell to developers.

In Norwood, Ohio City of Norwood v. Burton

Sixty minutes had 60 Minutes on Eminent Domain

There are literal hundreds of such cases.

My questions are what constitutes public use?

Should there be limits on the government?

If so, what limits should be set?

I made a topic just like this way back when but nobody cared. But i shall post my reaction to the use of eminent domain. The problem is that while the practice was first used for reasonable things (highways, schools, courthouses), it has now been used as a way to give private property to private business in order to collect tax revenue. This is a gross abuse of power on the part of local governments. ED should be used in matters of necessity...not economic gain.

Yes, many will say "just compensation" for one's home is good enough. But is it really? If you live in your house all your life and you do not want to move...is market value good enough for your home? I don't think so. Before anyone responds to ED with favor, one must think about their own home and whether or not they would be willing to just give it up if the government wanted to build a Walmart or Nissan parking lot.

Eminent Domain is wrong and cannot be justifed by any right thinking freedom loving person. It is theft at the point of a gun. For the greed of other your property is taken from you regardless of whether or not you agree.
The fair value argument does not hold water. It is like claiming its alright after commiting rape because you wore a condom.

Pretty strong words for a constitutional amendment.

I can see the government needing land for a road, school, fire station or some such other public use facility. I say that I can see it, even if I may not like it, and would in all probability fight it legally as hard as I could. But to claim that it is theft is a bit strong. Sometimes public need outweighs private rights, I think that what is needed is some sort of middle ground.

I would argue the opposite and doubt that the need of the public is ever so dire. it is used to accomodate those with money who want more. There are always other options for placement of anything. Generally a peice of land is desired to profit a special few and the public good is not a consideration.

It is theft. it is wrong. It is the act of a Tyrant. That it is a constitutional amendment is a gross abomination of the spirit of the Constituition.

A subject near and dear to my heart. I know how you feel Leder, I started a thread some time ago, and it didn't garner much attention. I'm of the opinion that eminent domain abuses are way below most people's radar.......until it happens to them. Unfortunately, most people don't realize that it CAN happen to them.
Corporate entities are so deeply in bed with local governments that its starting to take on a sexual meaning, of course it's the individual property owners who are getting.....um...molested.

Freedom means little without property rights. I was witness to a struggle between land owners and the City of Alabaster over a proposed development.
The city council was negotiating with Colonial Properties to build.......a police station? No. A library? No..........A Wal-Mart Supercenter. (Of which there are three others in a 15 mile radius) The compelling reason that the city was so eager to let Colonial in was the land and home owners weren't wealthy by any means, thus didn't pay much in taxes to the fair city. Colonial decided to use that one unique government asset, the right to use force, to accomplish something that it couldn't accomplish on its own. Colonial asked the City of Alabaster to use force to seize the property under eminent domain and then sell that property to them, so that plans for the shopping center can proceed. Guess what happened.....Alabaster opened condemnation proceedings to force the owners to vacate for a pittance, after they had refused to sell to colonial. And this happens all across the country on a virtually daily basis.

Georgia residents beware (ahem..Mike and Jaime ), the Georgia State Senate is mulling over SB5, which constitutes an assault launched by developers on the private property rights of Georgia residents. Under this law a developer can go to a local government and ask for a plot of land to be seized so that the developer can build "any property which any public entity is authorized to construct, erect, acquire, own, repair, remodel, maintain, add to, extend, improve, equip, operate or manage" under the laws of Georgia.

Governments are using eminent domain processes to take property from one owner and then sell it to another private individual or business simply because that transfer might result in higher property taxes being paid to the government. I'm not one to throw around the term "people better wake up", but in this case it's fitting. People are sleepwalking through life thinking the government is there to protect them, not realizing they could lose their dream home, retirement home, family home, whatever....on the whim of politicians.

I recommend the book Mugged By The State by Randall Fitzgerald. It will keep you up at night.

Here is a local case from my neck of the woods. Eminent domain Abuse in St. Louis



What is a "Media Box" you ask?



Ok, so the city of St. Louis wants to revitalize the arts district and thinks an auto repair shop is not suitable. How much you want to be that those Condos / Apartments and studios are going to be section 8 housing? Not likely.

So, the city is using eminent domain to take land from a citizen and give it to a company to create a for profit property on it. Doesn't sound like what eminent domain was intended for.



Hmmmm, should the owner sue the city for over-paid taxes since the city seems to now feel that his property is worth 12,800.00 less then what the amount is that they base his required tax payments on?

I fail to see how it could possibly be "Just compensation" if they same city taking the property says the property is worth 12,800 more then the offer at tax time.

I propose an amendment to out state constitution. We can never write a law to block this sort of thing, even an amendment. Cities will always find a way around it. But we can at least insure that people are truly receiving "just compensation".

I propose that we amend the state constitution to require that the property owner faced with eminent domain loss, get a minimum of three appraisals on their property by independent appraisers. The municipality would then be required to pay the owner 125% of the average of those appraisals.

This should ensure that people are properly compensated and it should practically eliminate this sort of thing for private companies. After all, why pay 125% when you can possibly negotiate it with the owner on your own and pay less?

Bottom line is, eminent domain abuse must be stopped. There is no reason for a for-profit company to benefit from eminent domain. It the property is so potentially profitable for heir grand plan, then they should pay appropriately for that profitability.











eminent domain

Here is another one from here in St Louis. I just saw this today...



How do you "remove" 254 houses? With a lot of payoffs and a bulldozer, that's how. And what about the property rights of these homeowners? Once again, this development is certainly for profit and the the company is also looking for assistance from the city in the way of tax increment financing. This is just another case of cities removing homeowners to make way for more profitable endeavors.

Full story : STLToday

Well there is one glimmer of hope in this one, though I don't know if I fully believe it, but at least there is hope.



Can't even get that much out of the mayor of St. Louis.

What I would like to know is why would people want to move to a town that has a history of taking property like this? Any town with a history of taking property from people would be the LAST place I considered for my home or business. The opposite it true as well. Those towns with a history of refusing to abuse the system would be the first places I considered.

St. Louis is struggling and it needs more residents in the city as a key to it's future success. However, the biggest thing keeping people from moving to the city is the poor performance of the schools, not a car repair shop in the arts district.

Priorities are really out of wack here.

...and therein lies the issue. When does public 'need' start to outweigh private rights? To use the example above...is a Nissan parking lot sufficient grounds? That 'parking lot' represents jobs, and therefore taxes, and therefore government revenue that can be used to provide a wealth of government services. The entire area would benefit. But does that really give the government the right to take it? The flip side of the coin is, suppose they didn't have the right. Greedy landowners could then prevent such improvements, charging exorbitant prices for their own selfish motive. Is that OK? As loreng says...it seems some middle ground is needed. But, how to achieve that? I would say that it should at least require more than 'fair market value' ...the owner rights are being abrogated, and they should receive compensation for that, as well as for the loss of their property.

Hobbes

The middle ground I am seeking is one of public vs. private. If the land in question is to be used for some sort of public property. Whether it be a park, fire station, highway, whatever then I can understand the use of Eminent Domain to purchase the property. The details of fair market value etc. are not the issue. Though overlandsailor has some good points on how to obtain fair market value.

My problem becomes when the government using Eminent Domain to get the land to sell to another private party. That is where I draw the line. I don't care how many jobs are created, etc. Eminent Domain should not be used to increase somebody's or some company's bottom line.

I just moved from Lakewood, Ohio where 60 Minutes did a piece on the Mayor and City Counsel decided to remove and entire neighborhood to replace single family dwellings with high rise condos because they would bring in more tax revenue. I went to that neighborhood and found to be quite charming, but the houses were too small for me otherwise a beautiful neighborhood. To make a long story a bit shorter the City Counsel and Mayor were recalled and the plan is off. I do not think that was what Eminent Domain was meant to do.

So I thought maybe we should hear what is going on in other places, maybe even in Europe, can they do that where other of the AD people live?

It is truly sad to see how far Americans have fallen to forget that we do not exist for the State--but the State for us. The Servant attitude of so many Americans reaches higher and stronger levels with each generation.
The loss of support for the Right of each State to refuse to follow the Central Planning agenda of Washington, The continued and always rising addiction to the federal government for handouts, and the growing belief that we are here to serve society and that our own selves are considered by so many to be subject to the dictates and whims of others.

I sincerely doubt you can find many cases where the need to take someones property from them does not involve the desire of someone to profit from the situation and you stand in his way. So the inevitable pressure and bribes to the appropriate people suddenly gets your property declared vital to the "interests and Well being of the PEOPLE"
Here in AZ the town of Scottsdale has sold all its availible land and cannot continue to get the kinds of money needed to support the extravagent public works they provide. Since they cannot raise taxes in this Republican stronghold--old school republicans, not this modern Neo Democrat version--without finding themselves unelected, they have begun to try and TAKE the land of people and businesses they deem unnecessary or not up to their standards.
Happily their attempts have failed badly--but they do not give up. And gain support as the truly selfish and self important realize the only way to keep the luxuries they have is to pay for it directly--which will never happen and is probably inconceivable. The talk now changes to "That 'parking lot' represents jobs, and therefore taxes, and therefore government revenue that can be used to provide a wealth of government services. The entire area would benefit."

and so the abuse will begin sooner rather than later and the rights of Americans--Or I guess as they will soon be referred to -- will be infringed for the desires of supposed Public Need.

My questions are what constitutes public use?

In my opinion, public use does not mean forcing people to sell their land/home/business because someone wants to generate revenue for a city/county/state. I am also in the camp with Christopher, Overland Sailor, StlJoe, lorenq59 and Hobbes; public “need” should not trump private rights.

In California, a bitter battle has been waged for 30+ years over the extension of the 710 freeway from Alhambra to the 210 freeway in Pasadena. 1,000 historic homes would have to be razed in order for this to happen. In 1998, the Federal Highway Administration approved a project to complete the extension, but it was rescinded in 2004. While this is a “public use” project, it offers very little benefit and a huge detriment. 710 Freeway Extension Project

Should there be limits on the government?

Hell yes, or they’d be free( r ) to trample what rights we have now. What incentive is there to buy property if the government can come in and take it away?

If so, what limits should be set?

In many cases, the park, fire station, what have you, can be located somewhere else. As far as the high-rise condos, Wal-Mart, and their for-profit brethren, well, I have two words for ‘em, and they ain’t happy birthday.

Truly blighted neighborhoods are generally not populated by homeowners and I would imagine they would be eager to see some improvements made. However, I'd be willing to bet those properties the government wants to sell to developers aren't in the 'hood.

Hobbes, this is where you and I part ways, I guess.

Yes, the parking lot could conceivably mean jobs that add to the tax base. It could just as well not mean that, however. For instance, what if the auto plant were already there, and they just underestimated the amount of parking space they were going to need, for employees or clients, or whatever. Now does the Government have the "right" to displace home and business owners who are presumably paying taxes on improved properties (and in the businesses case, sale taxes as well) and basically just reimburse them for the land value itself (not the buildings or other improvements), for a piece of flat ground with some asphalt on it and a fence around it?

And what about the these developers that want to tear down perfectly good homes and smaller apartments, where people have been living for years, maybe even their entire lifetimes, to build condos that these same homeowners couldn't even dream of affording? Maybe it will increase tax revenue for the city, maybe it won't.

Either way, I don't see eminent domain as anything more than legalized theft by the government, unless it's used strictly for building roads, schools, police and fire stations, or something similar. Something the government needs to build that will benefit everyone in the area. In these instances, you're right. Private owners should not be able to "hold up" the city for an exhorbitant amount, especially if the need is fairly immediate.

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the government taking my home or business to give the land under it to another private concern for their own profit, because that private concern has promised them a bigger return for the city's budget, whether or not that actually comes to pass. That definitely does not fit the definition.

Let's face it, the government is not in the "luxury high-rise business", the "big-box retail business", or the "professional sports stadium business", nor should they be. These are private enterprises, and it's unconscionable to think that the government should be helping them make more money by throwing people off of their hard earned property for "fair market value", defined of course by them and not the property owners.

If a new mall wants to build in my area, that's certainly their right. It's also my right to not sell them my property, if I don't want to, or to ask what I think I can get for it.

If I own a house and land worth, say, $250,000 and I tell them I will only sell if I get $500,000, then it's up to the mall to decide how badly they want to build there. If they really want that property, they'll pay me. If not, they can look somewhere else.

To go to the government, though, and have them take my house, and only give me $100,000, because they are only paying for the land under eminent domain (in many cases, at least) is not only unethical, it's downright illegal, in my opinion. Many here talk about having to pay their taxes as "theft at the point of a gun". How is this any different?

I just LOVE this! So Delicious.

A Democrat lecturing a "Conservative Republican" on the free Market and American Citizen property rights

Niteguy Rules!

There may be hope for this country yet.

It appears that the US Supreme Court is now willing to take up the issue

Connecticut residents fight for homes. Should prove to be interesting.

I'm going to have to break party lines here and agree w/ Niteguy. Realistically, there should never be a reason that the government interferes with capitalism or a free market economy. If someone owns $10 worth of property... the gov't should never be able to take it against their will, even if it is for $20.

There's an article on CNN about some of the SC's comments. I don't feel all that confident, but the article starts with

I'm keeping my fingers crossed it goes the way of the little guy, and not the developers, because I shudder to think what will happen otherwise.

Individual property rights have been slowly, but surely been taken away over the years. In many cases, (and I am not talking about HOAs), you cannot decide to remove a tree, add a room, paint the house purple, put a fence in the front yard, etc., etc., without government approval. And the government can and frequently does decide what can and cannot be done on a city+ wide scale with no consideration for individual needs or desires.

Now E.D. has been an ever growing issue for several years now. It has been abused repeatedly by politicians seeking the good of their wallets over the good of the people. Now the issue finally reaches the SC.

If the SC goes against the little guy on this one then mark you calender. It will be a day of morning for all who would be free, because it will be the day that individual property rights finally died.

overlandsailor,

It is sad but true what you say. Where in the heck are our rights going? Am extremely disappointed in the current direction. I hope that my community does not go in that direction. If it does I will be in front line to assist anybody and everybody that needs help.

This sort of thing can only be stopped with determined effort by the locals to tell the elected officials that they will be thrown out office, and good legal assistance to outlaw this practise.

True, except we have so polarized the electorate with partisan lies on both sides that many people honestly seem to think that voting in the other party would lead to the complete destruction of the world.

I am a moderate, who leans slightly conservative and slightly libertarian. However, I would vote in ANYONE, even good ol' Dennis K. to toss out a bum who was no good for the community. This was they way of the country for much of our history. However, these days, people are so polarized that I don't think it could actually happen anymore unless the politician in question actually killed a child on live tv or something similar.

So, when the public will no longer fight the good fight, what do you do?