Justices Affirm Property Seizures?

Question

On June 23, 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

Since this ruling their has been an increased number of families who are fighting to save property that has been in their families for decades.

What is your opinion on Eminent Domain and do you know anyone who has been a victim of this law.

Cyanne- I disagree, these people are often times forced to sell property that has been in their families for decades. Fair market value does not erase generations of family ownership.

Answer 1

In the Bronx, New York, Robert Moses in the 1950's, seized a large portion of land to build the Cross Bronx Expressway. The people who stood in the direct path of the CBX had to sell their property and their homes. Eminent Domain. To be honest, those people who had to sell their homes were givern more than the market/saleble amount.

The CBX was built and all the homeowners received their money and left and bought elsewhere. However, and here's where Eminent Domain falls apart.

I often leave Long Island, NY and utilize the CBX in order to get onto the NY Jersey Turnpike to get to the Meadowlands in East Rutherford, New Jeresy. As I look to the right from the passenger side (my friend Larry drives), I see ten - fifteen blocks of decay. Where was once an Italian-Jeweish community, now, there are abandoned buildings. Property devaluation has gone down to where the owners of the properrty have long since abandoned their property or relinquished their property to the City of New York.

The City of New York, as a result of Eminant Domain, has on many occassions been forced to take over and run buildings and property so much so, that the Mayor of the City of New York is considered the biggest slumlord in the City of New York, if not the State of New York.

Many hailed Robert Moses as a great an innovative man. Not me. You cannot and should not be allowed to simply build highways and roadways without a contingency 20 year plan.

Eminent Domain is a fact of life and built into our legal system. But, the legal system should be required to plan, through contingency funding, for the whole community for at least 20 years after Eminent Domain has been established for any government project.

Once the property tax base is lessened, or decreases, those remaining in any community must pick up the difference, regarding property taxes, and for that matter, all other taxes where normally others would contribute, to include sales taxes, etc.

It is a combination of the taxes being so high and the decreasing tax base that is causing people to re-locate. And, if you throw in a couple of sell-out artists many locales have in public office, who claim to be fighting for a neighborhood because they have a bill in some Legislature and before you know it, people start running, selling their homes while they could still get their price.

Without a minimum twenty year contingency funding program to stabalize the surrounding tax base and monies afforded people in the locale that will bring the property values up to market value...Eminent Domain is wrong-All Wrong.

The Supreme Court too often rules on the law based upon the written word and the arguements before the High Court. A federal adendum to the laws of Eminent Domain is needed to insure the safety and financial security of everyone who would be impacted by the law of Eminent Domain.

GREAT QUESTION...Sorry for being so wordy

Answer 2

Enough people don't like eminent domain, and enough LOCAL politicians are running for re-election, that a growing number of individual states are passing anti-eminent-domain laws. That is where the problem will be fixed.

Eminent domain may be proper when there is a demonstrable PUBLIC benefit, tied together with honestly blighted property. But didn't that recent case involve a private buyer? That is going too far.

Answer 3

Although Eminent Domain has been around for a very long time,
I do not agree with this Law at all.....

Even though I am a Law Abiding Citizen, If someone tried forcing me off my land so someone else can make money off it......

I would defend my Land to the Death.................

To me this Law Equates to Legalized Theft.............

Answer 4

A clear indication that corporate America has won the battle between people's rights and capitalists rights.

Answer 5

I am entirely for it! I know people who have been "victims" and they are NOT truly victims at all. They are paid fair market value for their property.