New Supreme Court ruling

by jula71 23 Replies latest members politics

• 

  jula71

  Now I'm pissed!!! The US Supreme Court has just ruled, local Governments CAN seize private property from anyone, against their will, and give to another private entity for economical development. The purpose and reasoning is to increase the tax base. This is absolutely crazy. Now, private property is no longer private.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html
• 

  TheListener

  Yes, it's called eminent domain. They can't seize it without "good" reason and for the greater public use. However, they must provide "fair" market value for the land. And it's only land I believe we're talking about. Other forms of private property wouldn't fall under this law.

  Here is an article I found on Findlaw.com:

  Eminent Domain: Taking Property for Public Use

  The Government's Power of Eminent Domain

  Eminent domain is the power of government to take private land for public use. This power is limited by the federal Constitution and by state constitutions -- when the government does take private property for public use, it must fairly compensate the owner for the deprivation. Sometimes the operation of eminent domain is a straightforward matter, with the government providing the landowner a fair price, and the landowner yielding the property to public use. At other times, however, government and the landowner may disagree over whether a taking has occurred, and how much compensation is due.

  History of "Eminent Domain"

  The law of eminent domain derives from the so-called "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment, which states, "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The men who created the Constitution were, for the most part, landholders with a certain mistrust of government power. To protect private landholders from abuses by government, the Founders limited the government's power to take property. At that time, the government action they likely envisioned was seizure of the land and its occupation by government. As the country's population continued to grow, however, local governments began to place increasing controls on the use of land. Where landowners believed that these restrictions impeded their use of the property, or damaged its value, they began to argue that these restrictions also constituted a taking of their land requiring adequate compensation. At first, the courts were reluctant to hear these claims. Over time, however, courts began to recognize them, adding a new dimension to the law of eminent domain.

  The Fifth Amendment "Takings" Clause

  The "Takings" Clause of the Fifth Amendment has several important components. First, it applies only to private property. Should the government decide to change the use of some piece of public land, i.e. build a bus terminal on what had been a public park, that action would not compel the government to pay citizens who used the park. It's possible, however, that the new use might infringe the rights of neighboring landowners so much that they could sue anyway, equating the infringement of their property rights with an outright taking of their land. This process, known as an inverse condemnation proceeding, is discussed below.

  The second requirement under the Fifth Amendment is that the land be taken for public use. This limitation prevents government officials from taking private land for their own purposes. For example, a member of Congress could not take the home of a private citizen for his or her own use under eminent domain. Sometimes, however, courts have upheld takings that ultimately resulted in a private party possessing the land. This has occurred, for example, to allow expansion of an auto plant felt to be beneficial to the local economy, and in instances of urban renewal, where a new neighborhood goes up in place of an old and dilapidated one.

  "Just" Compensation

  Finally, the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation. Fair compensation is typically determined using the market value of the land, that is, the price for which the landowner could reasonably expect to sell the land to some other buyer. What the land is worth depends on many things, including the size of the property and the buildings, crops, or timber upon the land. For permanent takings, courts use one of several methods to determine market value. Where the government's use of or encroachment upon the property is of limited duration or scope, the calculation of value may be trickier.

  The Eminent Domain Process

  In the classic case of eminent domain, the government determines that it needs certain privately owned land to create some public benefit, such as construction of a new highway. The government may offer the landowner a price to which he or she agrees, or it might initiate what is called a condemnation proceeding, when they cannot agree on value. The property owner has a right to notice of the government's decision and an opportunity to respond, and to just compensation for the land taken. The government pays the landowner, the landowner leaves the property, and the government builds the road.

  Inverse Condemnation Proceedings

  Sometimes, however, the government will deny that it has taken anything from the landowner. Thus, the landowner will commence an action, called an inverse condemnation proceeding, seeking compensation from the government. This situation can arise in a variety of ways. For example, the government might engage in conduct that destroys the landowner's ability to use and enjoy the property, such as by building an airstrip next to the property and flying planes over it, or cutting off or polluting the flow of water to the land. The government might also obstruct the landowner's access to the property with water or debris, as where dynamiting operations block the road to the landowner's property.

  The government might also infringe a landowner's rights through regulation. This could occur where the landowner buys land and builds a dance club and then the local government passes a law, banning dance clubs in the town. If the landowner's business is harmful to the public, the government's action in shutting it down may be a valid exercise of its police powers, as opposed to a taking. The government might also unduly restrict or diminish the property's use. A law raising minimum lot sizes from one acre to five acres robs a landowner with less than ten acres of the right to subdivide his or her property. A law denying sewer access or water access to certain plots would all but destroy their value for residential use. In these cases, the landowner could sue, arguing that the government has taken the property without paying for it.

  When Has a Taking Occurred?

  Another consideration in the area of eminent domain is to determine when the taking has occurred. Controversy over this question might arise when the government files some plan that affects the landowner's property, such as a zoning or development plan. If the government plans to build a highway or airport over or adjacent to plaintiff's land, does the plan alone constitute a taking at the time it is filed? The filing of the plan may hurt the value of the landowner's property, but the government may argue that it has not taken the land, nor infringed upon its use. Typically, such a filing alone does not constitute a taking. If the map or plan establishes reservations or limitations to the landowners' rights at the time it is filed, however, it may constitute a taking.

  As our land and communities become more crowded, and governments impose further zoning and environmental regulations, cases involving eminent domain and inverse condemnation are likely to increase.

  Getting Legal Help

  The law of eminent domain gives the government power to act in the public interest. Any time private land is taken for public use, however, the rights of individuals are affected. So long as the government provides just compensation for a valid taking, its actions are justified. In many cases, however, the government intrudes on property rights without offering compensation. In those cases, affected landowners may have the right to seek compensation through inverse condemnation proceedings. The legal questions at issue in such matters are complex, and the courts have been somewhat inconsistent in their approach to these cases. Persons confronted with government intrusion on their property rights should consider seeking the assistance of an attorney.
• 

  RichieRich

  Well the Supreme Court of My Ass has made ruling saying they won't be eminating shit from ME!

  "All things are lawful but not all things are BOOM!"
• 

  Big Dog

  Yeah, I agree, this blows. I can see emminent domain for public works projects but not for private use.
• 

  jula71

  I'm well aware of Eminent Domain. But how is "public use" defined? The case started in Connecticut where the a city got an offer to build a Riverfront hotel, only problem is, there are people's homes on the land. PEOPLE'S HOMES !!! The city argued that the increased tax revenues would would help the public so therefore, public use. Do you think this is in the spirit of the Constitution?
• 

  Big Dog

  I agree Jula, I think this is a case of taking "public use" to a ridiculous extreme. I don't think this is what the framers of the constitution had in mind at all.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  I can why this might be in certain cases, they should provide for those displaced above and beyond the fiar market price, simply for the reason that is is be siezed against the wishes of the owners. I think it would be more agreeable if they added an extra 50% to the fair mraket value, so that if someones home and property is worth $400,000 they should be compansated with $600,000 simply for the inconvience. I know that would never fly, but if it did it would cut down any frivolous actions by local governments.
• 

  upside/down

  Velkomen Welcome to Nazi USA the good ol US of A.

  The Nazi's didn't lose the war... they moved here and ran for office.

  u/d (of the I hate those guys too class)
• 

  TheListener

  I know it's not popular but it is sometimes very necessary. Of course, I agree that it can be taken to extremes.

  But, if you don't like the way officials handle things like this the locals should vote them out.

  It would be useful if the government had to over-reimburse the subjects of eminent domain. That would probably cut down on the frivolous misuse of the law.
• 

  jula71

  I know it's not popular but it is sometimes very necessary.

  I can't name any case where it would be "very necessary." The government can now freely take from a private individual and give it to the "people." The war against the individual is now in full swing.