What is the law that the city can force you to sell land if another company can make more tax revenue on it?

Question

I have to write an essay about a law I don't agree with. I know this happens a lot in cities like las vegas, where the casinos can force people, like those in trailer parks, to sell their land so the casinos can build on it. I need more information about the particulars of this law.

Answer 1

I don't know

Answer 2

I think you're talking about eminent domain.

That's not exactly how it happens, and a lot of people are misinformed, especially about the recent Supreme Court decision on the subject.

The process is this -- the govt (city, county, state, federal) has the right to take land for "public use". That's called eminent domain (5th Amendment). When doing so, the govt must may you "just compensation", usually fair market value.

Here's the first misunderstanding. The govt (city, county, state, federal) must take the land for itself. It cannot force you to sell it to some third party. However, the govt can take your land, then then THEY can turn around and sell it to some third-party. Yes, it's just one more step in the process, but it's an important step.

A few years back, there was a decision in the case Kelo v. New London, where the city wanted to take private homes, and then sell it to a privater real estate developer. The Supreme Court ruled that the city could do this, based on the increased tax revenues that the developer would bring in. Which leads to our second common misunderstanding.

The Court's decision was NOT that the land could be taken and given to a private developer. That was not the holding. The holding was that the legislature (city council, county board, state assembly, or Congress) has final say over what count as "public use".

In other words, if the legislature declares a use to be for public benefit, and they have some rational basis for making that claim, then the court cannot second guess the legislature.

People keep referring to this decision as judicial activism, mainly because they completely misunderstand the decision. The court was explicitly NOT deciding what counts as public use, and saying ONLY that the legislature can decide what is public use. So, the court is being accused of activism (legislating from the bench) because they DIDN'T draw a line, and instead deferred to the legislature. Which just proves how meaningless the judicial activism label really is.

The bottom line is that the legislature (city council, county board, state assembly, or Congress) has final say over what count as "public use", and can take land for that purpose, even if part of that public use means reselling the land to a private third party later.

{EDIT to JasonN} Very nice historical overview. Thank you.

Answer 3

Its called the law of "eminent domain" and is used when the city thinks that the land could be better used to do something other than what it is doing. You can fight this, but it is often difficult. I hope you are not having to deal with. The big guys don't always win, but they do have to compensate you for your land and property if it is taken over - they can't just "take it" and leave you with nothing. They are required by law to give the fair market value or better, depending on the situation.

Answer 4

It is called eminent domain. There is a lot of stuff out there on it. The Supreme Court just decided a case on it two terms ago called Kelo v. City of New London.

Answer 5

I agree a intake tax is the finest thanks to bypass. Its ineresting that Mike Huckabee suggested this answer very last election cycle, yet has now renegged. yet a intake tax, whuile reducing all different type of taxes might want to be a really truthful (and more convenient) answer to the mess it fairly is the present tax gadget, the position there are such quite some loopholes that even Warren Buffet stated that maximum of his wealthy pals finally end up paying a decrease tax fee than their secretaries!!!! The GST/Pst kept Canada some many years in the past, and Canada now has the bottom authorities debt contained in the G8. intake tax is a thanks to bypass. That and taxing vices (like cigarettes and risky nutrition extra) even as subsidizing in good structure possibilities- in spite of the undeniable fact that it fairly is yet another difficulty altogether.

Answer 6

The law is called Eminent Domain.

Answer 7

That's called Eminent Domain. It's referenced in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Answer 8

Eminent domain (US), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland), compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (Canada, South Africa) in common law legal systems is the lawful power of the state to expropriate private property without the owner's consent, either for its own use or on behalf of a third party. The term eminent domain is used primarily in the United States, where the term was derived in the mid-19th century from a legal treatise written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625. The term compulsory purchase, also originating in the mid-19th Century, is used primarily in England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that follow the principles of English law. Originally, the power of eminent domain was assumed to arise from natural law as an inherent power of the sovereign.

Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale. In many jurisdictions the power of eminent domain is tempered with a right that just compensation be made for the appropriation.

Some coined the term expropriation to refer to "appropriation" under eminent domain law, and may especially be used with regard to cases where no compensation is made for the confiscated property. Examples include the 1960 Cuban expropriation of property held by U.S. citizens, following a breakdown in economic and diplomatic relations between the Eisenhower administration and the Cuban government under Fidel Castro. U.S. nationals and corporations held vast amounts of Cuba's prime real-estate. Cuban authorities offered just compensation for US properties, as they had successfully done for Spanish, British and French properties when they nationalized private property in Cuba, for the common good. However, U.S. authorities refused, adhering to the notion that those properties are still privately owned by U.S. interests 46 years later.

The term "condemnation" is used to describe the act of a government exercising its authority of eminent domain. It is not to be confused with the term of the same name that describes the legal process whereby real property, generally a building, is deemed legally unfit for habitation due to its physical defects. Condemnation via eminent domain indicates the government is taking the property; usually, the only thing that remains to be decided is the amount of just compensation. Condemnation of buildings on grounds of health and safety hazards or gross zoning violation usually does not deprive the owner of the property condemned but requires the owner to rectify the offending situation.

The exercise of eminent domain is not limited merely to real property. Governments may also condemn the value in a contract such as a franchise agreement (which is why many franchise agreements will stipulate that in condemnation proceedings, the franchise itself has no value).

Answer 9

Eminent domain, though it was never intended to allow corporations to take private property. It is supposed to be for government projects that serve the community good (like roads, railways, infrastructure) or for improving urban blight (rundown or condemed property). The liberal courts have allowed the government to steal private property for the good of big business. As always, the pols are in bed with business.

Answer 10

I live in Connecticut and we just had an emminent domain case go to the Supreme Court. This is a website you can check out.
http://www.ij.org/

Answer 11

emminent domain. and they do it for the good of the people as a whole. like when highways were first being put in they had to cross over peoples homes and over land so the government said for the good of the people we need your land.