But if the land taken is sold to a private company for construction of a pricate facility then wouldn't this be a breach of eminent domain ?
2006-09-04 13:00:48 · 6 answers · asked by IRunWithScissors 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I meant to say private facility
2006-09-04 13:05:07 · update #1
No that's not a correct statement of the law. Eminent domain applies to any property "taken for public use" (5th Amendment).
And what constitutes "public use" is defined by the legislative body (city, county, state, federal) that takes the property.
Which makes the answer simple. If you don't want your city or state taking the land for construction projects, have them change the laws to prohibit such takings. That's the thing about it being controlled by the legislature. Talk to the legislature to get it done.
{EDIT to desotobrave} Actually, that wasn't the holding.
The holding said that determinations of "public use" are up to the legislature, not the courts. The one time the court defers to the legislature and doesn't try to make the rules themself they get blamed for not being activist enough. It's laughable hypocrisy.
2006-09-04 13:04:24 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is pretty positioned into the structure via the founding fathers so as that governments isn't incapacitated. for instance, if a city desires a city hall or a library, they prefer to purchase land for it indirectly, and it basically about continuously has to go back from deepest resources. authorities gained't purchase land on an same fee that deepest builders ought to, so deepest builders are not likely to promote the land except they're obligated to. Judges negotiate a value. I agree that in recent years (and perchance in the previous) that is been abused, pretty even as it replaced into at present used to take land from low-income households and promises it to larger-income homes. it really is thoroughly adversarial to the point of eminent area.
2016-12-06 10:04:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You'd think so but the courts, in typical activist fashion, have ruled that a piece of land can be taken for the benefit of a private third party.
2006-09-04 13:07:11 · answer #3 · answered by williegod 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not according to the incorrect SCOTUS. They wrongly decided that a piece of private property could be condemned THEN transferred to anothe private party in the KELO case.
Coragryph: I don't believe it is laughable hypocrisy. The clause is clear. You obviously have more legal experience and knowledge than I, but believe this one is simple and they got it wrong.
2006-09-04 13:02:07 · answer #4 · answered by desotobrave 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The current rules, coming from a recent Supreme Court case, say that as long as tax revenue will go up, it's all good.
Destroying poor neighborhoods to built an oil refinery? Yep.
Tearing down 100-year old homes to built condos? Hell yeah!
As long as the new taxes go up, it's legal.
2006-09-04 13:08:38 · answer #5 · answered by mattpytlak 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope think disneyland how many jobs does it provide why should home ownership be a barrier to a new road or a car factory or other large economic projects the only thing the owner is owed is monetary compensation sad but true
2006-09-04 13:37:59 · answer #6 · answered by Dan B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋