Case Study: Objection To Eminent Domain

there have been a couple of cases that raised the questions of when eminent domain should be

If there is no other way to handle the situation, then the legal owners should be compensated monetarily for the loss of the physical property and any loss of revenue. On the Other hand, those in the judicial system claiming that eminent domain aids in the capture and conviction of criminals who could be a danger to society. They state that in many instances imposing eminent domain gives them the right to search and seize property, thus gathering evidence to convict criminals and placing the property out of their reach for future use. In conclusion, the topic of eminent domain is one that people have strong feelings about because it has long term effects on those involved. There can be many emotions involved since it involves money and

America's government system is powerful. One way the government flexes their muscles is through eminent domain. Eminent domain is the government's power to seize land from one and give it over to another. Most times, eminent domain is used to improve the city. There are a lot of tensions between whether eminent domain is morally right or even constitutional.

The legal issue in this case is whether the interest of the Crafts in receiving gas was a property interest protected by the due process clause. The applicable law that applies to the facts of this case is the due process clause which provides a guarantee of protection against the loss of property or rights without the chance to be heard. In the case Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division v. Craft the Tennessee residents were right in contending that they had been denied due process of law because their gas service was terminated due to a misunderstanding,

Amongst topics of conversation regarding eminent domain, one will find regulatory usage of land, seizing of land for public use, and the most controversial of late, the seizing of land from a private owner and giving it to a more economically beneficial, often politically connected private owner. Kelo v New London (US 2005), has prompted dozens of proposals to reform eminent domain practices legislatively. Most of these proposals would restrict the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private individual to another. It is one thing to have a city claim property to further the development of the city by building roads, schools, etc. It is another thing altogether for the government to seize a property so as to gain money from higher taxation. For many years, however, courts have read the public-use restraint broadly, enabling governments to take property from one owner, often small and powerless, and transfer it to another, often large and politically connected, all in the name of economic development, urban renewal, or job creation.

Imagine getting a visitor at your front door, and the visitor offers you a very generous amount of money for them to take you property for public use. For some people it is the property they grew up on, and for others it is the property that has been passed down through family generations. That is what happens when private property owners experience eminent domain. Eminent domain can be a wonderful thing for big companies and powerful leaders. On the other hand, people lose their homes, or perhaps their farmland. Those who offer eminent domain often have big plans that can benefit a community, but the huge loss here is people losing their homes. Most companies will only enforce eminent domain if they have no other choice. Other companies do it purely for themselves. Eminent domain should be used for the good of mankind, because it has the power to put some good places in this world if done correctly.

   To save their homes from becoming open land, the nine petitioners sued New London and Pfizter Inc., to whom New London has given eminent domain power. The petitioners argue that what incorporation is doing, and what the government of the state has allowed violates their fifth amendment rights. Petitioners are not arguing about the fact of a new

The constitution puts it out clear that the person whose private property has been seized for public use is entitled to just compensation, which is a fair current cash market value of the property in question. This is quoted to be the price that a willing buyer would give and a willing seller would accept for the property. This is why it is referred to as the fair price because it was where the buyer and seller would reach at a consensus. Eminent Domain has affected very many people across all the counties in the United States of America each and every year. One such instance is that which occurred in 2002 in Long Beach, NJ.

The taking of land refers “to government seizure, regulation, or intrusion on private property for which the owner is entitled to compensations under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). There is also regulatory takings, which is the “newly enforceable restrictions on the use of ones property, such as a newly adopted restrictions on building in certain areas of wetlands.” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). All over the world governments take private land from its owners to benefit the public. In the United States it is called emanated domain, and has been a controversial issue till this day. By evaluating the case of Lucas V South Carolina Coastal Council of 1992 and evaluating the two types of regulatory action that automatically trigger compensation as takings; the dissent object to the takings approach laid out by the majority in this case; cities ability to take private property and transfer it to private developers for the sake of economic revitalization; the ethical issues surrounding the principle of using eminent domain to take away the property ownership rights of individuals; and the feeling I would have if the government was to take my land.

The power of eminent domain was originally solely exclusive to the federal government. The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment extended this power to the states, but Supreme Court decisions in the 1870s “refused to extend the just compensation requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment,” and consequently, abuse of the power was common (Jost). Twenty eight years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the “just compensation” clause was applied to the states by Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, in which the Bill of Rights was declared to also apply to the actions of state governments in an attempt to stop the series of uncompensated takings and other abuses. These abuses continue

The concept of eminent domain is the condemnation of property for the public’s well being or good for private use is not the original intention and should not be used in this way. Private corporations and individuals are using the initial purpose was for the acquisition of land for the building of railroads and highways. The use of eminent domain has changed over the years by law, government and legal interpretations. These changes have allowed private interest groups to petition the state and local governments for eminent domain to be declared on property where the owners refuse to sell. Each states position on eminent domain is decided by the legislature and the voters of the state for use by private corporations and individuals.

Martin’s property has been seized by the government authorities for community development by exercising eminent domain. According to (Whitman, 1969), eminent domain is the right a state can exercise to seize private property for public use with payment of adequate compensation to the owner. Since the new business would create jobs and increase development opportunities in the city, it means the city authorities have the legal right through eminent domain to seize Martin’s property.

According to Wikipedia Eminent domain is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. However, it can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character

Eminent Domain if used correctly is a fair practice. Looking at this case, I think governments should put more rules into this law to make sure it is not used to take advantage of people. All those home were taken so that a Pharmaceutical company could bring their people here to live which in-turn would help the community. In the end they did not come. It was total waste of effort. In this case Eminent Domain was take advantage of because of a hypothetical that private corporation could help a community. It should not have been used in the first place. Eminent Domain should stick with only being used only for community efforts such as highways, hospital, efforts the community of that city.

Eminent domain refers to the inherent power of the state to take or seize the private property of its individual citizens. Property taken through eminent domain is mainly set aside for the development of public utilities or assigned to a third party who is then supposed to use it for the general good of the public (Larson, 2004).