Eminent Domain: Does the government have the right to take your property for private use?

Question

Just about everyone knows that under a process called eminent domain, the government can (and does) seize private property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse.

But did you know the government can also seize your land for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good"?

Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing.

Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's determined to be fair market value.

Please respond with your opinion on this issue. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Answer 1

As of now, yes there was a supreme court ruling on a case in New London, Ct. where the city took land for a commercial development under the "public good" premise of rehabilitation.

I think it sucks.

Answer 2

High speed rail is twice as fast as any kind of road transit and ten times more efficient in the use of fuel. Not having high speed rail transit handicaps American industry in its competition for factory jobs with other countries. Vacant rail rights of way exist, and some existing rights of way are wide enough to include a second line, high speed, right next to the existing 100 year old obsolete rail lines they carry now. There is little or no shortage of land here, even in the congested eastern corridor where the advantages of high speed rail would be greatest. Your economic analysis is faulty. Like everything else Mr Obama proposes, this is a nerd solution, the best idea from the smartest people we have. Magazines like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics have been pushing expansion of high speed rail in America for 20 years or more. What rock have you been living under, or do you prefer that the US become a second rate country in the name of property rights? The Founders put the right of eminent domain in the Constitution for issues just like this!

Answer 3

actually no, they don't, it is private property, but if for public use (not necessarily public good there is a difference) and must give you market value based on if they weren't trying to get it if they were to sell it on the open market, of course most of teh time they will try to intimidate or coerce a lower payout they seldom pay a fair market value.

emient domain is being abused, corporations are using it as a weapon to get what they want at fraction fo the cost to them. It is for public use not public good, there is a difference. a store is not for public use, just try to park your car for a day there and not shop there, it is for customers, a condo is not for public use only for buyers try parking car there and placing a blanket on the lawn to eat lunch, a public use is something all can use with little or no pay out like a park, or public roads, bridges or community center, library, that sorta thing. Or even for a government office needed to adminstrat and for voters and people to use for information about government, to find out who is running and about candidates etc.

you can just walk in, without a passport or money pay out, that is a public use. a public good is different in that it helps out the community in ways not all benefit directly, such as more taxes to build roads from the businesses, but seldom does it ever work out that way most of the time they are given all kinds of subsidies, most roads are built by people who buy gas or pay other taxes. but rather it is the community that ends up supporting the private good.

public good is a misnomer. it is doublespeak as it is not a public good if people have to worry their property will be seized without fair compensation due to these abuses, the public is harmed directly and indirectly. or if people are tossed out of their homes and do not get fair value in return it can hurt the community because others will not buy homes there and it will cause many people to abandon the area.

a public use is for all to use whether they have money or not. that is for public use. like a rest stop along the highway.

it will create resentment, and i am sure increase in crime too.

RRRR

Answer 4

Thank Judge Souter of the Supreme Court. This is Communism at it's best If you read The Ten Planks of Communism! It has been about three years since that ruling. Other rulings are in the mix that will further restrict freedom as we once knew it in America. ( free speech, land and heritance rights etc...) Americans have been asleep at the switch.

Answer 5

After the really controversial case a few years ago many areas passed laws to limit eminent domain.

Around here they can no longer take land for the "public good"

Answer 6

I have a friend who lived on land his family had owned for over one hundred years. It had previously been farmed on by his grandfather. Wal-mart needed to open store number 864,275, and the city wanted it on his land. The court said he was required to take the city's offer, irrespective of the fact that he didn't want to sell or move, and that his family had owned the land forever. That's fair, huh ?

:-(

Answer 7

In my opinion, I beileve the government, especially in a democratic country, should notify the houseowners of the fact that they want to use their property before they go ahead and do it, especially in the cases of expropriation. They should give the evicted owners adequate compensation as well as a new place to live. In other words, they have to justify their actions before they go ahead and do it.

Answer 8

thy sure do they took my day land for a freeway