Definition of Eminent Domain

me | 6-24-05 | jim_trent

[flada]

Totally off topic, but my daughter lives in Ladysmith, WI.

[jwalsh07]

The majority opinion is based on bad precedent. Once the courts make precedent, good or bad, they always expand on it, they don't contract. Here we have taken the 5A right to property with a narrow exception to the point where your home can be taken so that somebody with more money and better contacts than you can build a bigger home. From a constitutional republic to a fascist state in 6 easy precedents.

Sort of like Roe which made first trimester abortion a right, we now can kill babies that have all but their little toe out of the birth canal. It's a commie thing.

[CygnusXI]

Easy:

Is meant to be:
Public good. In other words to develop into a property that the public uses. Railroads, roads, powerplants, etc.

Is not:
Hotels, condos, Starbucks.
....unless you can wander into those places and use their facilities for free... since they are "public".

WOOT free condos and lattes!!!
not.

The decision is dead wrong-- no if's ands or buts.

[Ladysmith]

Is that so? Well, they're getting some good rain right now. ;o)

[Sloth]

Did they never hear the words "urban development" which has been around for ever.

Rape has been around for millennia -- I guess it ought to be legal, too.

[commonerX]

""I live 20 miles from New London. The Fort Trumbull section of New London is middle class. The homes they are stealing are owned by middle class people. There is no blight in New London, only submarines. The CT Supreme Court and the SCOTUS noted that in their holdings. No blight, just politicians and friends with deep pockets who want the land. The "takings clause" shall henceforth be known as the "want clause" as in if I want your home and I've got deeper pockets and friends on the commission the land is mine for the taking.""


Only 20 miles. I know it would never happen but it would be nice if a very large group of people from their local community would block the attempts of the builder to take the homes. If local community would fight this as a whole they might get it done, but I don't know what the people in that area is like.

[Think free or die]

" it isn't about fair compensation; the owners simply don't want to sell ... at any price."

Shortly after my in-laws bought their land and built the family house, the state decided to widen the road in front of it. They fought the effort, but of course lost, and received some compensation for the strip of land taken from the front of their lot. They always felt like they'd been robbed, not only because of the (piddling) compensation, but by the change itself. The larger loss to them was the changes to the neighborhood created by the road widening. They built a 5 bedroom family house on a secluded lot on a quiet street with a babbling brook and quaint stone bridge. Within two years of building the house, they were facing a 45 mph state emergency route with the brook deep under the roadway in a steel and concrete culvert. They realized that the changes in the neighborhood were far more destructive than the loss of a strip of land. They were unsuccessful in stopping the project, and faced significant depreciation of their property. The payment for a strip of land was in no way compensation for what was lost to them.

When people say they've been inadequately compensated for their loss, they're dealing with losses on several levels. Seeing the door opened for easier property grabs just makes me ill.

[jwalsh07]

There have been gatherings, I suspect we will have more.

[Lokibob]

Thank you, that is an interesting discussion, and apparently, Eminent domain IS being used against churches now.

[Freebird Forever]

Some old fart, with nothing to lose and no where to go, is going to take his displeasure directly to SCOTUS, and create some new openings.

When left with nothing else to lose, the Samson Option becomes a viable solution.

[Flyer]

The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue

Eminent domain to increase tax revenues is wrong.

[commonerX]

The government might still take their land but it makes enough media stink the politicians may have rethink their decision on this ruling about eminent domain as only for public use.

[Captain Rhino]

No, that's corruption of a public official and you get indicted and go to jail (along with the public official). The taking or condemnation has to serve a demonstratable public purpose that can withstand court review.

Read the opinion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108


In this case, there was a heck of a lot of public analysis and review before the project was initiated and a heck of a lot afterward during the court case.

Eminent domain exists because there are times when the greater public good - AS VALIDATED BY REVIEW IN COURTS OF LAW - really does outweight the rights of individual property owners (which are subject to many, many restrictions already) and there has to be a legal mechanism to reallocate the real property to that use.

Read the opinion.

[GatorGirl]

All true, but the paraphrased legal definition of "fair market value" is "what a willing buyer pays a willing seller". In eminent domain, the seller is not willing, otherwise the property would not have to be condemned, the transaction would take place in the usual course of business.

I could live with the "public use" concept, after all, it sez so in the Constitution. But the extension to "private use" is alarming and unconscionable IMHO.

The couple in CT may have wanted to pass on that family home to their own family. "Fair market value" as determined by a court today may be 1/2 of what the property will be worth in 5 years. These families will be forced to sell now as opposed to reaping the financial benefits of holding on to the property for longer if they choose. That's just wrong.

[null and void]

Now can Cities have a right to cross county lines. If a rural county is next to a major city can the city say "we have no where to go but over there"?

Classically what they do is have a special election to merge both counties.

One Man One Vote.

A few thousand farmers in one county vs a few million envious city dwellers in the other.

[Tired of Taxes]

they shoud feign discovery of the highly endangered white-spotted-hushpuppy-muckraker on their premises and then report it to the enviro-whackos. That'll keep the developers at bay.

That was done not far from me, using a rare type of snake. A developer had told his buyers he would build all single homes, and then he decided to build rowhomes right behind them. One of the buyers had connections to someone who was connected to the EPA, and, well, you can guess the rest of the story... lol.

[freeeee]

Eminent domain to increase tax revenues is wrong.

Agreed. The People delegated power to take land for public infrastructure: roads, schools, water projects, etc..

It is no surprise governemnt has not respected limits on this power. Yesterday they chose to openly declare they will abuse it. I say we take it away from them.

[Tired of Taxes]

A discussion on churches and how they'll be affected started here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429706/posts

[Captain Rhino]

Did you read the opinion?

If not, read it here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108

(It's not that long or complicated.)

[Dan Cooper]

Governments don't rights, they have powers. In our case it is supposed to be limited powers that do not infringe on our individual rights. This ruling is an expansion of the taking power for "public use" to include something as nebulous as economic development. Your point that this has been going on anyway is well taken, but this confirmation by the Supreme Court is a cold shock. The little guy, who owns his bit of property has essentially been told, it doesn't matter that you pay your mortgage and property taxes, if someone more affluent wants your land, they can take it. Government is supposed to protect your rights, not collude in their violation.

The genius of the USA is that through hard work, thrift, and perseverance, an individual could own their own property and be on the same standing as any other property owner, large or small. Now it seems that those with more pull with government, or who have a development plan for your property that is more appealing to the local government can push your rights aside. This may have been the reality on the ground for awhile now, but this official confirmation of that reality does not go down well.