Thoughts about Imminent Domain?

Question

My parents have had thier home for over twenty five years. We all love it and the five acres it sits on. To sum it up its our "American Dream" They live in a small town that is growing fast. I am scared to death it will be taken away to make room for some highway or other form of progress. What are your thoughts on Imminent Domain?

Answer 1

Thoughts about Eminent Domain?

Eminent domain was once a necessary but rarely used power of government that kept individual landowners from preventing the most sensible and efficient placement of public buildings and roadways. And as long as eminent domain is rarely used and used only to make way for public buildings, public works, and public roadways, it's something Americans should tolerate-- as it's been tolerated for many, many years.

But over the past few decades, eminent domain has been used more and more for fewer and fewer necessities and efficiencies. It's been said, and is probably true in this case, "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

Here's the proof:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT
No. 04—108.Argued February 22, 2005–Decided June 23, 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that government could use eminent domain to take private property and give it to other PRIVATE entities for PRIVATE uses that would increase tax revenues and otherwise "benefit the public good."

Americans should be outraged. Because this isn't what was meant by eminent domain and it isn't at all consistent with the history of eminent domain in America. This is one of those times the U.S. Supreme court got it wrong. Very wrong.

“Justice O’Connor wrote, ‘Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.’”

This is a good and timely question about which every American should be interested. Laws need to be passed and consitutions need to be amended throughout the 50 states that say definitively that eminent domain is only for those rare instances when the public requires some public work, public building or public roadway that can't sensibly and efficiently be placed elsewhere.

And while we're at it, let's compensate landowners by giving them the greater compensation of either double the market value of their property or whatever the property would be valued at were it to contain the public improvement being placed on it.

America is only a great country because we protect the rights of individuals even when a majority of people would like to trample upon them. We need to continue and strengthen our commitment to those principles, and fighting back against the injustice of arbitrary eminent domain is a great start.

Answer 2

Eminent domain (incidentally, not to quibble, but it's "eminent" and not "imminent") is one of those governmental powers that is definitely susceptible to abuse. That is why there have traditionally been limits on it. The "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation being given. That is why condemnation proceedings take place. Unfortunately, these proceedings can be a bit of a kangaroo court. The government need only pay just and reasonable compensation for taking a piece of property. Of course, common knowledge that the government is about to take it necessarily reduces the market value of the property, making it much more difficult to say what it's real present day value is.

One of the long-standing assumptions about eminent domain was that government could not take private property from one private party in order to give it to another private party, particularly absent some nuisance constituting a danger to the public on the property. That is, any condemnation of private property would have to be for truly public use--as noted in the takings clause--such as streets, parks, etc. Then a few years ago, the U. S. Supreme Court spoke up in the case of Kelo v. New London. This is a truly scary case. The majority held that expansion of the tax base of a municipality fell within the "public use" requirement of the takings clause. Because business property almost necessarily generates more revenue than residential property, the implication is that government can take private residential property to hand over to a business owner who wishes to develop the property for commercial use any time that it wants to.

The Kelo case set off a firestorm nationally. It is probably one of the most criticized Supreme Court opinions of recent years. Fortunately, many states and municipalities set about amending their state constitutions, statutes, and local ordinances to shore up property rights--rights everyone had previously assumed were protected by the Fifth Amendment.

You should check to see if your town has a code of ordinances and, if so, see what, if anything it says about private property rights. You should also check your state statutes for the same thing. If no protections are in place, get to work. Get together with like-minded individuals and see if you can get something passed by your town/city council. The time to act is before there is a crisis.

Answer 3

I think Imminent Domain should be used extremely narrowly. And as the constitution says "for public use". Not just for the public good. I don't think someone with a business should be able to ever get the government to take someone's private land to make a shopping mall or a hotel or anything like that. Imminent Domain is supposed to allow for things like procuring land for roads that everyone in the public would/could use. I think the Supreme Court was out of its mind in the Kelo v New London case.

Answer 4

First of all, it is Eminent Domain -- with a "E." It derives from the pre-eminence of the sovereign over the rights of his subjects.

Nor is it a "communist," concept. In fact the doctrine that the sovereign can do what he wants with his subject's land, tools, animals, wives, children, etc. preceeds communism by probably 50,000 years. Indeed the last sentence of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution [ " . . . nor shall private property be taken for PUBLIC USE without just compensation." ] was included expressly to limit that power.

That being said I was disappointed by the Kelo decision that allowed the State of Connecticut to involuntarily condemn property for private use. A popular "revolt" has resulted in many states enacting laws and state constitutional amendments against such takings, but I would have preferred to see the doctrine of no private use constitutionally protected by the Due Process Clause.

Answer 5

First...it's 'eminent', not 'imminent'.

It always comes down to power and government always has power over individuals. If you consider all the freeways, highways and municipal parks in cities that most of the land for which had to be obtained by 'public domain'...it's mind-boggling.
Most people look at these 'improvements' as necessary...untill it's their own ox being gored, so to speak. Individually we all sympathize with your fears. As a group, however, we are going to look at the plat-maps and say, "Gee, we're sorry, but..."

Answer 6

Nothing you can do about Imminent Domain law. They took my place, that is why I'm living where I am now. They said they needed it for a new school. I hope your parents don't end up in a nursing home like so many do.

Answer 7

I understand the need for growth of a town/city, but if someone owns a chunk of land, I don't think that a government can just come in and say "Sorry, but we are taking it. Get going."

I think that the government must prove in a court of law that if the land owner does not sell the chunk of land the government is trying to get, that it will DIRECTLY EFFECT the income of the government. Not that overall stuff, but "if they don't sell, then this business will lose $XXXX.XX each year". If they can't directly prove that, then I think that imminent domain is just another way for big business to stick it to citizens and get their land for less than fair market value.

Answer 8

Imminent domain and other communist laws are the fault of the american people. we do not fight these things and keep them from happening to us. the american people just cower down and let the government have it's way.

Answer 9

As my family lost twenty acres I think it stinks. There wasn't any need for the Government to do what they did and how the powers to be lied about it and didn't tell us ALL the facts was disgusting.

Answer 10

It's Eminent Domain and it sucks.