Hi! In my Civics class we talked about the gov't taking away our land. We were given the example of the Kelo family a few years ago in Connecticut. The gov't wanted to take their land to improve the town. They said they were using their power of "eminent domain" which is a practice indirectly sanctioned by the US Constitution. My teacher wanted me to get the opinions of the public. I decided to use this site to post my question. I need your opinion on the following:
The US Supreme Court ruled last June that the city of New London DID have the right to take the property from the homeowners and redevelop the neighborhood. What long-term implications do you believe this will/could have on the United States? What is your personal opinion about this ruling?
THANXXX!!!!
2007-02-18 03:23:12 · 12 answers · asked by FeEdMeJuNkFoOd 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
It's a slippery slope...
2007-02-18 03:27:17 · answer #1 · answered by conx-the-dots 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Eminent domain was not put into the constitution to take away peoples homes and lives. It was set forth so that if Joe Blow had 115 acres and the town needed a bit more room they could buy a portion of Joe's land to help the community. Thats to say if Joe was a jerk and didn't want to just help the community and sell a small % of his land. However when people are now having their homes stripped away with years of working on their land at a book evaluated price it isn't right.We the people for the people. I don't think so.
2007-02-18 11:56:00 · answer #2 · answered by stephenmwells 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Eminent domain does not allow the government to simply take land. The government does have the right to use land for the good of the city, town, county, state or whatever, at its' discretion, but the owners of that land must be given proper notice, a chnace to appeal the decision and they must be paid a fair market price for the land that is acquired by the government. Those that are unhappy with a government project must show just cause against that project and must have the support of a large group.
2007-02-18 11:30:38 · answer #3 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
eminent domain
Should only be used rarely and ONLY when there is no other choice.
IE An expressway is being built they have to have a certain property. OK
IE A developer wants to build (take your pick) condos, a mall, office building and because it will bring in more tax money then the house, small business, empty lot. The Government SHOULD have no right in that situation to take anyones property.
I think if this is allowed to continue in this way there will be a lot of trouble on a local level. Then when some one is killed trying to defend their property it will cause a national stir and some thing will be done.
2007-02-18 11:35:59 · answer #4 · answered by danzka2001 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They always could, but they have to compensate you for it. It frequently happens with highway projects. The issue last year was whether they could take your land (with compensation) for PRIVATE development in order to improve an area and increase the tax base. That's iffy and would depend entirely on the circumstances. Even if you're improving a slum district, you not only have an obligation to compensate the property owners but also to relocate the residents to an affordable place where they can live. There is no cut and dried yes/no answer to this.
2007-02-18 11:36:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Realize that you or me or anybody DOESN"T OWN the land. Once formed and duly elected the government of the state, or country has jurisdiction over all real property.
Fail to pay your land tax and see if you continue to enjoy the use of the property.
It goes back to the dark ages when the king owned the land and bequeathed holdings to hisloyal subjects. That is why the English Royal family is rich, everybody in London and the area around pays a land tax.
2007-02-18 11:29:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's bad enough that the government was always able to sieze private property for such things as new schools and highways, but now having governments able to sieze land simply to develop it more so they can bring in more tax revenue is outrageous.
Corruption is rife in government, and this is a court ruling that invites abuse. Developers could now slip a few bucks to the local authorities to force people out of their homes if they wanted to "redevelop" a particular area. This is an example of government acting in the interest of itself rather than in the interests of individual citizens.
2007-02-18 11:38:38 · answer #7 · answered by kscottmccormick 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in washington state they can take your land for anything they want and also tell you what you can do with your land, example if you have a creek running threw your property you can`t cut down trees you have to top them even if that tree is not where you want it. you have to build 150 ft. away from the creek. this changes all the time last year it was 35 feet now its 150 ft. the list goes on and on but your property tax goes up and up with land that you can`t use or do anything with. its the same as them taking your land and not payiny you for it instead you pay them rent on it with the property taxs.
2007-02-18 11:44:46 · answer #8 · answered by pheebe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They took it away from the indians so I guess they can do whatever they want to do. But this is not fair to just take something away. They should have to pay double the appraised value if they force someone to sell.
2007-02-18 11:30:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Long term implications? More firebombing of construction sites on unconstitutionally seized land, I would hope.
2007-02-18 11:27:33 · answer #10 · answered by Guncrazy 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Thanks to lefist Senator Max Baucus in Montana, the federal government is trying to take over 300,000 acres of valuable forest land from private owners. Isn't that SPECIAL????
2007-02-18 11:27:32 · answer #11 · answered by Mon-chu' 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋