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).
Totally off topic, but my daughter lives in Ladysmith, WI.
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.
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.
Is that so? Well, they're getting some good rain right now. ;o)
Rape has been around for millennia -- I guess it ought to be legal, too.
""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.
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.
There have been gatherings, I suspect we will have more.
Thank you, that is an interesting discussion, and apparently, Eminent domain IS being used against churches now.
When left with nothing else to lose, the Samson Option becomes a viable solution.
Eminent domain to increase tax revenues is wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A discussion on churches and how they'll be affected started here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429706/posts
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.)
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.
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.