Do you believe in eminent domain? Basically if the government think they have a better use for your land they can take it and pay you whatever they feel like paying you. I think it's wrong, if I own property I don't think anyone should be able to take it. Founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew about this. What do you think.
2007-09-20 06:46:57 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
To the guy who says they buy it from you...they buy it from you for the price they determine. If I came to buy a car from you would you let me pick the price I want to pay for it or would you set a price?
2007-09-20 06:54:56 · update #1
To the guy below, the way it was written into the constitution was not meant to be used the way it is being used. Also, you are wrong saying its not commongly used, it's used all the time.
2007-09-20 07:20:39 · update #2
I tend to agree with you. There are some instances where eminent domain is used for the right reasons. Such as the taking of portions of land for shoring up levees in New Orleans, is one example. It is for the public good.
However, this process has been abused recently. Land is being seized by the government "for the public good". Then, a few years later, this same land winds up in the hand of private developers, who build resorts, fancy homes, lakes, etc. all "for the betterment of the community", and/or allegedly to inject cash into a poor local economy.
They use any number of excuses, such as the need for a fresh water source, to build an expansive reservoir system. This same excuse is being used in my county. The politicians cry that we need another water source, but one of the main attractions listed on our tourism site is the "abundance of fresh, clear water" in the county!
Eminent domain, for the most part, does nothing but take land from the original (usually poor) landowner for a pittance, and enrich the politicians, contractors and developers.
2007-09-20 06:58:43 · answer #1 · answered by ~RedBird~ 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it's specifically put into the constitution by the founding fathers so that governments won't be incapacitated. For example, if a town needs a city hall or a library, they need to buy land for it in some way, and it almost always has to come from private property. Government won't buy land at the same rate that private developers would, so private developers are unlikely to sell the land unless they are obligated to. Judges negotiate a price.
I agree that in recent years (and perhaps in the past) it has been abused, especially when it was recently used to take land from low-income households and give it to higher-income apartments. That is completely against the point of eminent domain.
2007-09-20 06:54:38 · answer #2 · answered by MrPotatoHead 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A government cannot function effectively without being able to use eminent domain. So in principle I do agree with it. However, I totally disagree with the way it gets used in a lot of cases. I don't think it should be used to foreclose on property that gets turned over to real estate developers. That's a travesty and an outrage.
And you are right on your follow up question. There does need to be a better way to determine the value of the property.
2007-09-20 06:59:29 · answer #3 · answered by Michael C 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The founding fathers wrote Eminent Domain into the Constitution, so they are hardly rolling in their graves. There are rare occasions when the government needs the authority to take private property for public use. However, it should be extremely rare and only in desperate circumstances.
2007-09-20 07:02:52 · answer #4 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am againsts it 99.99% of the time and Ambivilant .01% of the time there are very few instances where I feel it is justifyable and even in those instances I feel that it is still wrong without bringing into account more than just property value theres a really good austrailian movie about a family going through it called the castle it brings up the issue that theres more to a homes value than the money.
2007-09-20 08:47:48 · answer #5 · answered by sdn 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only in extreme circumstances dealing with public safety is it justified, and that is the only reason it was included in the constitution as a narrow exception to the otherwise unfettered right to private property. They would certainly be turning in their graves if they saw how it is being used today.
2007-09-20 06:58:09 · answer #6 · answered by haywood jablome 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course the use of eminent domain laws is wrong, but that's not the issue. The government deals in 'legal' and 'illegal', not RIGHT and WRONG.
2007-09-20 08:27:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fifth Amendment: [no person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Doesn't that imply that the founding fathers anticipated public taking of private lands? I do agree that there are tremendous abuses of the "public use doctrine." However, the government must have the power to purchase land when necessary. They have to give you market value and you have the right to a jury trial to determine market value if you disagree.
2007-09-20 06:51:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I am outraged that my 5th amendment rights are being violated. I am sure they are rolling over in their graves at everything that is going on in this country after they worked so hard to start it.
2007-09-20 06:50:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I believe in eminent domain as much as I believe in God.
So, no.
It's an inexcusable tyranny that can not be justified even by any whimsical way of articulating a description of the means of oppression. Not even Shakespeare could write sufficiently to leave the suspended disbelief that anything like eminent domain could be moral in any aspect of its means or ends.
2007-09-20 06:51:09 · answer #10 · answered by thalog482 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋