This home in New London, Conn., is one of several at the center of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling. Susette Kelo and other homeowners had refused to sell their property for what their city said was a needed private development project.
Posted on 06/24/2005 6:53:25 AM PDT by jim_trent
Definition of Eminent Domain: The power of government to take private property for public use. The owner must receive just compensation, and must receive due process before the property is taken. Often referred to as “condemnation”, which is the act of exercising eminent domain.
It looks like the Supreme Court has officially confirmed what has been going on for many years (the World Trade Center was built on land that was acquired by eminent domain – and so was the Brooklyn Bridge). Public use now officially includes the creation of jobs or economic growth. Regardless of how you feel about that, lets get our facts straight. There has been a LOT of misinformation posted here about Eminent Domain and/or Condemnation.
I cannot speak about what went on 50, 100, or 1,000 years ago. However, as long as I have been involved in obtaining property for public works projects (about 12 years), these have been the rules that I have worked with and, in major respects, it is identical to the rules in all other states that I have been in contact with. The rules were codified in the 1950’s with the creation of the Interstate road system and have only been changed slightly since then. The people who have posted that they know someone who knows someone who had their land seized and were not paid anything for it either don’t know the true facts of the case or are lying.
1. There has to be a public finding by a LOCAL government body that land is needed for a project. There are public hearings (in every case I know of) before they decide. 2. There has to be “just compensation” paid for all property taken, including the land and all real property attached to it. That includes buildings, fences, outbuildings, crops, orchards, etc. 3. Just compensation is determined by an appraisal. What the property could be sold for today is the present value. Appraisals are done daily for a number of reasons (taxes, insurance, borrowing money, etc), not just for condemnations. The procedures are well established in the (private) industry. Check the yellow pages to see how many appraisers there are in your area. 4. An appraiser is hired by the government entity to appraise the property. If the owner disagrees with the finding, the owner can hire an appraiser of their own. Usually, the two appraisals are similar (within 10% to 25%). An appraiser will usually not come up with an appraisal of 500% to 1 million percent more than the governmental appraiser, but individual owners often want that much. The owner can continue to trial even if they cannot hire an appraiser that agrees with them. 5. If the two appraisals (or amounts) are different, there are negotiations. If they are close, there is generally an agreement made. If they are not, the case goes to trial. All evidence is presented to a jury, that usually has sympathy for the little guy. 6. In our state, there is a law that the jury cannot substitute their own estimate of the value (since they are not qualified appraisers). In other words, they cannot “split the difference” between the two appraisals (this is not in all states). That would be the easy way out, but there is good reason for that rule. By forcing the jury to take one or the other, the government appraiser is not encouraged to undervalue the property and the property owner is not encouraged to wildly inflate the value. In addition, if the jury awards the owner anything more than 15% higher than what the government offered, the government entity pays all costs for both sides (the owners lawyer, appraiser, etc). 7. Sometimes (under specific cases), the rules we follow require the owner to be paid far more than the property is actually worth. If the house they are living in is unfit for human habitation (and many are), they must be paid what it would cost to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood, but in reasonable condition. 8. Moving costs must also be paid. Costs for hooking up utilities and other costs that are related to the move are paid. In addition, all monies paid are tax exempt. People who rent are also paid for moving, finding a similar property to rent, and any fees needed to enter a new place. 9. The cost of obtaining land for road projects (which I am most familiar with) is often 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the entire project.
This will not change anyone’s mind on the Supreme Court decision, but I hope it will at least stop some of the misinformation about Eminent Domain that is being spread. It looks to me like the Supreme Court just bumped this back to the States (States Rights). If the LOCAL politicians are stealing land right and left, they can (and should) be voted out of office by the LOCAL politicians. If the States want to INCREASE the protections of property owners, they can. It is all up to the voters (you).
Good post.
I just wish people would read the actual opinion because it is not as broad as the fearmongers and muckrakers would have you believe.
"Since yesterday:
* any land can be transfered to another private owner without the need to condemn it first if it is for the "greater good" (yeah, that's specific)"
The case says no such thing. Read it before posting again.
I agree with you -- not enough facts about the neighborhood to make a statement. When I lived in Fairborn, Ohio, they bulldozed a whole area because it was in such bad shape and I mean really bad shape right across the railroad from Wright-Patterson AFB. Some owners complained but it should have been taken down IMHO and that was in the 80's.
When a city does a downtown revitalization project, this happens or in this case down on the wharf. Midwest City, OK, just bought out a group of home owners that were too close to Tinker AFB and businesses standing in the way of a new mall area. Happens all the time wherever I have lived.
Some of the statements I have seen on here go way over the top without their knowing what the circumstances are in the case.
The Fifth certainly is not very specific. That's why we've been talking about proposing new state constitutional amendments to limit eminent domain.
Government has no "rights", government has powers that are assigned to them by the Constitution and the people. We can all only pray to our God that people like you are few and far between.
Everybody!
Read the opinion! Read the opinion! Read the opinion!
Read it here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108
The Constitution says that land can be taken for public use- that excluded things like private condos. This ruling has changed that, as Justice Thomas noted, making the Public Use clause a practical nullity. The fact that that state and local governments were already going beyond the eminent domain laws does not make this constitutional.
Please do not tell me that you agree with this 'political insider' reward-your-donor program.
Looks like a nice home. You're not saying you think that should be condemned, are you?
Yesterdays holding distorts the original meaning of the "takings clause" and the "public use" clause to a point where they don't meany anything except what pols and judges say they mean. It is you who doesn't understand the holding in Kelo.
A church pays NO TAXES. Under this new ruling, where it is in the public interest to collect taxes on that property, could not the local officials condemn the church property, sell it to a developer, and gain taxable property?
Exactly. The State's interest is that the new more expensive bungalow will pay more taxes. This gives the State compelling interest to get into the real estate bidness, especially if due to voter inititives (Like Prop 13) they can't just jack up the taxes any time they feel like it.
Bad time to invest in land. Good time to invest in construction companies.
Agree with you both -- people are reading into the court ruling things that are not there. That is not unusual on here anymore -- just more of the hand wringers on here going off the deep end with a few facts in their hand -- they feed off of each other it seems. I admit I don't have enough facts to get specific such as the price the homeowners were offered, etc.
Did they never hear the words "urban development" which has been around for ever. Those were private building contractors that came in after the Government took the property.
You are off the wall.
The majority opinion, (read it here : http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108 ) is based on over a century of case law.
Even the dissenting Justices acknowledge it!
More easily said than done, in many cases. Our founders understood that the rights of individuals need to be protected against the potential tyranny of government. They also understood the need for a republic rather than a pure democracy, ensuring that a majority of the population would not impinge on the rights of the minority. By saying that people should vote out their local government if they don't like it, you're failing to protect the basic rights of what is likely to be a minority in the local community. It's entirely possible that the majority of the local population would prefer that a few properties be seized for re-development and would be perfectly happy to retain the local elected officials who made it happen. We can't count on the generosity of our neighbors to protect individual property rights. Politics and money will undermine those individual rights in short order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.