What do you think of emminent domain laws?

Question

There have been a fair number of news stories as of late, where emminent domain was enacted to make people sell their property, regardless of whether or not they wanted to leave. Do you think that the people who are forced to sell get a fair price for their property? Do you see this as a violation of peoples' rights?

Answer 1

It is definately a violation of people's rights, I can understand for a school or something of that nature, BUT the cases you are hearing about on the news are of companies/ city governments trying to make a profit. To me this is blatant thievery, and something needs to be done soon. This is one of the reasons we have the right to bear arms.

Answer 2

Many of the other answers are quite good, but it is important to note that eminent domain is more than just a "law", it is derived from the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. It's never going away, absent an amendment. All the government has to do is provide one with reasonable compensation for the land. The interesting debate, however, concerns the recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London. It was always accepted that the government could take land (and pay compensation) if that land was going towards a public use. However, Kelo expanded the definition of "public use" to include any use that will benefit the public as a whole, including any economic use. Thus, land could be taken and then given to a private developer, so long as that private developer was to develop a land in such a way that benefitted the economy. Always remember that when you vote for the President, that person is only around for four years (eight tops), but any Justice they appoint to the Court is there for life.

Answer 3

I understand the idea of eminent domain, however, I do feel it wrong. People have built their lives on a piece of land, and the "fair market value" price can not cover the cost of moving. What if you can't afford to move? Ex. your credit is poor enough that obtaining another mortgage is impossible? What if the value of your home is far less than others in your area and moving would mean you have to pay more for another home? There would have to be a really good reason to enforce the eminent domain. Nothing piddly like parking lots, business, schools, or road expansions that could go other places.

We had something similar happen to us a few years ago. It was only 10 feet of our land, but dropped our property value drastically. All so they could run high voltage power lines down the street and install huge hideous new poles in our yards! Our home will not sell, at least not without taking a $20,000 or more loss.

Answer 4

Very shortly, I expect to start waging a campaign against the abuses of eminent domain, and a related scam called wetland designation.

Well meaning politicians decided to protect wetlands, which is fine. If an area is a real wetland, that type of ecosystem should be preserved. However, give governments a law, and they'll figure out a way to pervert its intent.

What is happening all over the U.S. is that areas that should never be considered wetlands are essentially being confiscated from the rightful landowners. The definition of wetlands is clearly defined by the Army Corps of Engineers, but local governments can make their own determinations about what they consider wetlands, and they are abusing this power.

By making your land worthless, they are essentially confiscating it.

This misapplication of the term wetland is a much bigger problem than the eminent domain situation. In neither situation is the property owners given anywhere near a fair price.

I predict a big backlash against the eminent domain situation. People are losing their historic family homes so some slime ball developer can get rich. I have seen on Fox News how for example, the owner of a tire store is being forced out to make room for other businesses. One of those businesses is........ you guessed it, another tire store.

Answer 5

I understand the necessity of eminent domain laws, but think there ought to be legal recourse for those negatively affected by it to seek fair compensation through the courts. Injecting the courts into the process might help ensure that those whose property is taken or reduced in value get fair compensation, not just what the government feels like paying.

And there really needs to be a way to prevent localities from using eminent domain to help out businesses who want to build shopping malls etc. If it means amending the Constitution, so be it.

Answer 6

Eminent domain is a necessary evil, but cities abuse it when they make people leave their homes just to build a shopping center.

Answer 7

we need to hang a few of the supreme court Justice starting with Suitar and Clinton's Girlfriend

Answer 8

I think I don't want to purchase a house or land. It makes a difference who's tepee it is doesn't it.

Answer 9

i think big gov. have way over step there boundaries taking poor peoples home for their own use or some other big company really suck