Government can seize homeowners' property for private development

[Sara]

[color=#6699cc][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain][b]Eminent Domain[/b][/url] (link goes to wiki)...

...refers to the power of a government to "take" (or "condemn") private property and appropriate for other use without consent of the owners. In the US, "just compensation" must be provided, and--until recently--the government must have a [i]public use[/i] in mind for the land it is taking.

[b]Example[/b]: City government wants to expand a two-lane highway into a four-lane or six-lane highway. The people who own the land along the highway are offered money for their land, but constistantly refuse to sell. In this case, the city can use its power of eminent domain to simply [i]take the land[/i], without consent of the owner, as long as they pay what is determined to be "just compensation" in that situation. End result: the homeowners are out of their land, up some money (if involuntarily), and the the public has a new four-lane highway.

This is okay, because new roads (as well as hospitals, military bases, railroads, schools, and public utilities) are in the Public Interest.

All this is based on the Fifth Amendment to thhe US Consitution (it's not just about self-incrimination ;)), which states: [i]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;[b] nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/b][/i]

Last month, the Supreme Court of the United Sates (in the case Kelo v. New London) ruled that "[b]Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government.[/b]" (Justice Stevens, majority opionion--5-4 ruling.)

That might not mean much to you, but here's what it boils down to: Governments can use eminent domain to better a community. If they decide (and who can argue) that raising the tax base betters a community, they can seize [i]any land they want[/i] and sell it to private developers--for shopping malls, business parks, high-priced new housing developments. People can be--and are--losing their property to [i]private companies and businesses[/i], and this is condoned by the Supreme Court.

[url=http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050624-120942-4179r.htm][i]Washington Times[/i] on on New London decision.[/url]
[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/]MSNBC on the same[/url]
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/]Annnnd CNN.[/url]

I would love to hear your thoughts on this decision.[/color]

[Ailes de Velour]

[font=arial][size=1][color=darkorchid]

I kind of see it similar to my situation with the high school I have to go to.
"Since you have to go there, you can have something that you normally wouldn't get in return..." says my dad. I told him I didn't want anything but my friends (because none of them are going to this high school). I don't really see material items as just compensation for loss of friends!!

Just the same, it's not really fair. I can kind of see the governments reasoning if a homeowner hasn't finished payments on their house yet, in which case it's not completely theirs. But they signed the papers, and they've been paying for it, so the government shouldn't have control over it. That seems ridiculous that a government would do that. At least to me, though what do I know? My knowledge of politics can be written on the tip of a pin. x_X

[/font][/color][/size]

[AnonymousSource]

I don't know if what they're doing is a "bad" thing, but the fact that they have the ability to take property scares me quite a bit.

This could continue, domino-style, until we lose the right of property all together and the government can just chose what whatever land you're on is to be used for and could even evict you for disagreeing with something the government does. You lose all right to property completely!

[DeathBug]

This decision happened about two weeks ago, and don't think there's been no response. Dozens of private groups and state governments have reacted to ensure that eminent domain is still viable in their own territories.

This whole thing really shows how out-of-control the judicial branch of the government has become. How many people have heard of the trend some judges have of citing international law? Judicial activism is a crock, and it's tearing the country apart. After all, judges aren't accountable to anyone after they become judges.

A judge should be an originalist, that sticks to the original document they're representing: the Constitution in this case. If you want to change the Constitution, you go through the Legislature, [b]not[/i] the judiciary.

Hopefully, the new judges appointed to the Supreme Court will not be judicial activists.

[url=http://www.limitedgov.org/sites/lg/common_sense.aspx?Title=Soutered%20for%20Bulldozing]And here's some happy news.[/url]

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] It's not like the US Government is out to get us (let's hope), so I don't think it will be a major issue. No doubt there will be situations when the state government uses this for ****** purposes, but that has always happened.

What I'm guessing most homeowners will be pissed about is that the gov't won't give them ample money. Which will probably happen. I don't see any war over this, is what I'm trying to get across.[/color]

[i]A judge should be an originalist, that sticks to the original document they're representing: the Constitution in this case. If you want to change the Constitution, you go through the Legislature, [i]not[/i] the judiciary.

Hopefully, the new judges appointed to the Supreme Court will not be judicial activists.[/i]

[color=darkslateblue] Seriously, no. The Judicial Supreme Court has the power to rule law unconstitutional, it doesn't mean they're a bunch of hippies trying to radically change the world. Please remember: Legislsature makes the laws, Judicial Courts judge it.[/color]

[Morpheus]

The thing is, people won't have to worry about their homes being seized if they aren't zoned properly(The zoning laws are finally useful). A mall can't just open up in the middle of a subdivision.

[Godelsensei]

Why should one property owner have the right to hold back the development of an entire community? If your house is in the way of progress and you're being offered a nice sum for it, it's really quite backwards to demand the government pay some ridiculous amount of dollars to wrap a road or school [i]around[/i] it, as oppose to just through where it used to be.

[Morpheus]

Now that I think about it, this could be the result of my community crying out. A Chrysler plant was to be built about 10 miles from here and was all set to proceed, but one landowner would not sell. He was offered 1 million for his 50 acres(a high premium in rural Kentucky). According to him, the land had sentimental value (his family lived there for 60 years). His actions led to Chrysler to locate the 1 billion dollar factory in Alabama. Everyone wanted to wring his neck.

[Sara]

[color=#6699cc]Deathbug, your link made me smile. :)

And he's right, the decision took place a few weeks ago, and there has been a huge public outcry. I know that several of my state's legislators are working to draft a law that would limit eminent domain and protect property owners' rights.

[quote name='Godel']Why should one property owner have the right to hold back the development of an entire community? If your house is in the way of progress and you're being offered a nice sum for it, it's really quite backwards to demand the government pay some ridiculous amount of dollars to wrap a road or school around it, as oppose to just through where it used to be.[/quote]In the case of a road or school, that has always been condoned. The recent Supreme Court decision allows local governments to seize land in order to sell it to (as in Morpheus's example) Chrysler.

The main point being argued is that Eminent Domain is supposed to appropriate land for [i]public use.[/i] A new car factory is not accessible to the public--it is a privately owned facility. The company is getting the land, and the company is making a profit.

There are really two reasons why people wouldn't sell their land:
1.) As Godel suggested, they're simply holding out for more money.
2.) They simply [i]do not wish to relocate.[/i] Again, as in Morpheus's example.

[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml]CBS article from homeowner's perspective.[/url][/color]

[Retribution]

[SIZE=1]How would you feel if someone was 'evicting' you, for the public good? Your house was on your own private property first, and the government decides to take it away because it is for a greater good. Now you must pack up all your belongings, move to somewhere else, who knows how far away to find another house, and you must make new friends, new connections, go to a new school all for the public good?

Just offering the other side of the coin, as most of the people here seem to be for eminent domain.[/SIZE]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]When I first read this, I straight away thought of the classic Australian film [u][url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118826/plotsummary]The Castle[/url][/u]. Click the title for a summary of the plot. In many ways this is a similar case.

Maybe it isn't necessarily fair for somebody to stall plans for expansion or new factories etc. But is it fair to be kicked out of your home? If you jeopardise the security of the homeowner, you undermine faith in the judiciary. Like there is a whole tonne of that left to be undermined anyway.[/size]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

We have something similar to [b]Eminent Domain[/b] in Ireland called a [b]C.P.O. or Compulsory Purchase Order[/b], which like the E.D. allows the Government to effectively buy any piece of land in the country. A person who is served with a Compulsory Purchase Order has the right to appeal the decision with the Planning Board, but often don't get anywhere with it as C.P.O.s are generally used for the building of roads, schools, hospitals and other publicly-used buildings and amenities.

C.P.O.s tend to be used most of the time in rural areas, as much of Ireland is still rural, although rural here probably has a different meaning that in other larger countries. Most of the time they're served to large farmers who own acres and acres of land for the use of buying land to build new and better roads, and often farmers object because they want to keep their land and sod the money.

Living in the country I suppose I can see both sides of the argument, here land has been owned by families for hundreds of years and they aren't keen to part with it because it's not just a simple piece of land and not subject to value. However then you have cases of farmers who hold on their land simply to try and get the most out of it, because a C.P.O. means they have to sell. This often involves farmers who own land around areas of new development, and honestly as it's their land they deserve to make a decent profit if they're going to lose it.

The idea however of a government being able to acquire land for the use of Private companies is troubling, as an E.D. or C.P.O. effectively means that a government can get a much better price for a plot of land (or house, farm, etc.) than the private company would if they had to buy it themselves. As well of course the person can't say no to an C.P.O. and they have to sell whether or not they want to.

In response to Godel's and Morpheus' posts, many people in the countryside, rich farmers or not just may not want to part with their land. When your family has lived somewhere for decades (the house I live in has been owned by my family for over 70 years) moving is a huge and painful task, and to do so because some sod wants to put in a mini-mall or something is a right kick in a teeth.

The main question you can ask yourself is would you like to be served with one ? [/SIZE]

[Semjaza]

I read about this weeks upon weeks ago and sent the link in to some other news sites. Regardless of who is pushing for it, it's really just very sad. The Fifth Amendment is not supposed to be twisted in this way. It was meant for things of importance, not a private entity wanting to install a new mall or office center.

Repeating what has been said, a home you live in isn't just about money. I wouldn't want to move out of a home I've lived in all my life for an office complex or a McDonald's, regardless of what I was paid. There's an attachment to something like that. It's not the same thing as the government wanting to extend something like the Pentagon onto my property.

I read about that Souter thing soon afterwards. It's really perfect irony.

[Pumpkin]

[SIZE=1][QUOTE=Retribution][SIZE=1]How would you feel if someone was 'evicting' you, for the public good? Your house was on your own private property first, and the government decides to take it away because it is for a greater good. Now you must pack up all your belongings, move to somewhere else, who knows how far away to find another house, and you must make new friends, new connections, go to a new school all for the public good?

Just offering the other side of the coin, as most of the people here seem to be for eminent domain.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Finally someone says something for the people that are losing their homes. So what if they don't want to give up their homes? Especially if you have had a home for many years in your family, some things are worth more then a sum of money believe it or not. It's irreplacable. I know I would be pretty upset to see the house that I've lived in my whole life be destroyed for a stupid mall or private buisness to be put in it's place, especially against my will.

Another point that's been brought up, is it's not so easy to move. It's like if someone were to walk into your house today and tell you to pack your bags and leave by morning. How would you feel? So you could say no I don't believe in Eminent Domain unless its for a hospital that desperately needs to be built (in which its still up to the residents if they want to move or not) otherwise no mall should be built on someone's neighborhood without permission.

[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]
In response to Godel's and Morpheus' posts, many people in the countryside, rich farmers or not just may not want to part with their land. When your family has lived somewhere for decades (the house I live in has been owned by my family for over 70 years) moving is a huge and painful task, and to do so because some sod wants to put in a mini-mall or something is a right kick in a teeth.

The main question you can ask yourself is would you like to be served with one ? [/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Yup that pretty much about sums it up.
[/SIZE]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']The main question you can ask yourself is would you like to be served with one ? [/SIZE][/quote]
That's like asking if I would want to get the death penalty, just because I can see why it is important. Of course it would suck to get chosen for either of these things, but, in the end, you have to get over it. Even if the house is sentimental, you shouldn't hold back a community. That Chrysler plant could have produced thousands of jobs. They weren't even trying to buy the house. Just the land.

[Boba Fett]

I work in New London and live less than 10 minutes from Fort Trumbull, where the city is planning on evicting homeowners to use the property for commerical use. The reasoning behind this decision is that the city, which is in debt, seeks more businesses to raise tax revenue - and the land in question is very close to a pre-existing business park (which will likely be expanded over the homes of Ms. Kelo and the other residents).

But, there is a bill currently in the state legislature that'd prevent this from happening. Should it pass, no city in CT - including New London - would be able to take land for private "[i]public use[/i]."

[Gavin]

[quote name='Morpheus']That's like asking if I would want to get the death penalty, just because I can see why it is important. Of course it would suck to get chosen for either of these things, but, in the end, you have to get over it. Even if the house is sentimental, you shouldn't hold back a community. That Chrysler plant could have produced thousands of jobs. They weren't even trying to buy the house. Just the land.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Yes I don't doubt the Chrysler plant could have produced a good deal of employment for the area, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is that a piece of legislation that should be used only for the acquisition of land for public purposes, and then only when necessary could be perverted for use by major companies.

If you think about it, it potentially gives any corporation with enough political clout the ability to get [B]any[/B] plot or area of land they require for a nominal price (the compensation paid would certainly be cheaper than trying to acquire it as a private company) and there's no possibility that the offer will be rejected, because it [b]can't[/b] be rejected.

Yes I suppose that individual held back progress in the town, but that's coming from ever person who [B]didn't[/B] have to sell their land, had no attachments to that plot of land and were going to see the benefits of Chrysler moving there. For that person it would have meant having to pack up everything, move potentially out of the area (thus negating the benefits to him, aside from his "compensation") and losing the land which his family had lived on for 60 years. Not to be offensive but those from the area who hadn't lived on that land (and gotten to know it as home as that person did) hadn't any damn right to complain. It was his home and he shouldn't have to sell if he didn't want to.

Again this issue is about the misuse of the law, rather than whether or not people have the right to refuse to sell the home to help the community. [/SIZE]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']Again this issue is about the misuse of the law, rather than whether or not people have the right to refuse to sell the home to help the community. [/SIZE][/quote]
Using the law to get tax revenue is a misuse, but the plant could have employed every single unemployed person in the town, not to mention drawing work from the rest of the county. We only have 90,000 people, and a very large plant could have solved area unemployment for many, many years.

[Gavin]

[quote name='Morpheus']Using the law to get tax revenue is a misuse, but the plant could have employed every single unemployed person in the town, not to mention drawing work from the rest of the county. We only have 90,000 people, and a very large plant could have solved area unemployment for many, many years.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Yes, I suppose it could have and it's unfortunate that Chrysler didn't seek an alternative location near the town when it became apparent that that person was not going to sell their land. However it still wouldn't be right or fair to ask that person to give up their home for the sake of the community, regardless of how many unemployed people would have found jobs. Yes it would have been good for the community, but if you got a job on another person losing their home when they didn't want to lose it is something a lot of people would find unsettling.[/SIZE]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']Yes, I suppose it could have and it's unfortunate that Chrysler didn't seek an alternative location near the town when it became apparent that that person was not going to sell their land. However it still wouldn't be right or fair to ask that person to give up their home for the sake of the community, regardless of how many unemployed people would have found jobs. Yes it would have been good for the community, but if you got a job on another person losing their home when they didn't want to lose it is something a lot of people would find unsettling.[/SIZE][/quote]
The man was not asked to sell his home. Only 50 of his acres. His house sat off of the plot that was sought.