Eminent domain. Most of us have heard that phrase at one time or another. It sounds fierce, intimidating, and makes most people think of an unstoppable force. The legal definition of eminent domain is “The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.” In simple terms, eminent domain is the power of the Federal, state, or local government to forcefully take any personally owned property for government use, as long as “fair value” is paid to the owner. The property rights to air, water, and land are all subject to eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment. “Private …show more content…
One such case was that of Jim and JoAnn Saleet. Residence of a beautiful neighborhood in Lakewood, Ohio. Overlooking the Rocky River valley, the couple lived in this home for 40 years, and had no plans of leaving until the Lakewood Mayor, Madeline Cain, announced a plan to replace the Saleets, and all of their neighbors’ homes with high-end shopping and upscale condos through eminent domain. The Mayor and city council had determined that the Sleets neighborhood was “blighted”. Supposedly a “blight study” had been conducted and the results were that the neighborhood had too high of a rate of police/fire department calls and it was now functionally and economically obsolete. Knowing that this couldn’t be true, the Saleets along with their neighbors, did some digging and found that only one major crime, a robbery, had occurred in the previous two years, and most of the fire department calls had been real medical emergencies. What was astounding was the cities definition of “blighted”. As defined by the Lakewood city council, and neighborhood was considered blighted if it had less than a two car garage, less than two full bathrooms, less than three bedrooms, less than 1400 square feet and less than a 5,00 square feet lot size. The fact that eminent domain has been so loosely defined has helped to lend itself to abuse. Eminent domain has important purpose, and needs to exist for our country to grow and thrive. Schools need to be built, roads need to be laid, hospitals must be raised, but cases like the one just mentioned are not exactly rare. Eminent domain is being manipulated across the country to produce more shopping centers, under the guise that high-end shopping will generate more money towards taxes than the subdivision it will replace, which is not exactly true. The Saleets community used their Fourteenth
Eddie Koiki Mabo was a successful land rights activist born on Mer (Murray) Island in the Torres Strait in 1936. When he was sixteen, he was exiled from the island and lived in Queensland and the Torres Strait before moving to Townsville with his young family in 1962. In 1982 Mabo and four other islanders took legal action to the High court, claiming ownership of their lands on Murray Island. The case went for over ten years until the lands were ruled as being not ‘terra nullius’ and the Meriam people then gained the rights to own their land.
Iceland recognizes the issue of eminent domain, as they have had trouble with this in regards to geothermal deposits. However, they agree with the ECHR regarding rights to fair compensation. Governments should only take property if it will benefit the public as a whole.
In today’s real estate market there is one sensitive issues that has been debated on over the years regarding, zoning and rezoning laws and whether the home owners and investors should receive a compensation for every property affected by the zoning. The zoning laws has been known to either decreases or increases the value of a property. According to David Ling zoning is the regulation on a land use by dividing the community into various parts namely: Residential, commercial, industrial and other districts. (C.Ling, 2015)
Also, I would have to research any issues that I could face down the road before I was to make such a large investment in land. I don’t feel that I have a right to build anything if it has a negative impact on the surrounding properties. Also, if the government does not provide me with valid reason and shows proof of the negative impact on the environment than would file suit against the government under the Fifth Amendment that protects private property from taking.
In the early 1900s, “restrictive covenants” more specifically racially restrictive covenants were legally enforceable agreements that prohibited landowners from leasing or selling property to minority groups, at that time namely African Americans. The practice of the covenants, private, racially restrictive covenants, originated as a reaction to a court ruling in 1917 “which declared municipally mandated racial zoning unconstitutional . . . leaving the door open for private agreements, such as restrictive covenants, to continue to perpetuate residential segregation” (Boston, n.d.). It was more of a symbolic act than attacking the “discriminatory nature” (Schaefer, 2012, p. 184) of the restrictive covenants, when the Supreme Court found in the 1948 case of Shelley v Kraemer that racially restrictive covenants were unconstitutional. In this particular case, a white couple, the Kraemers lived in a neighborhood in Missouri that was governed by a restrictive covenant. When a black couple moved into their neighborhood, the Kraemers went to the court asking that the covenant be enforced. In a unanimous decision, it was decided, “state courts could not constitutionally prevent the sale of real property to blacks even if that property is covered by a racially restrictive covenant. Standing alone, racially restrictive covenants violate no rights. However, their enforcement by state court injunctions constitutes state action in violation of the 14th Amendment” (Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948). Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the covenants were unenforceable, it was not until 1968 when the Fair Housing Act was passed that it become illegal (Latshaw, 2010). Even though today it is illegal, it might appear that we still have an unspoken...
United States v. 50 Acres of Land was a court case between a public committee and the United States government. As a result of a flood control project, the United States government condemned 50 acres of land that was being used as a landfill. The dispute was over whether the government needed to provide more money for the 50 acres of land. The court had only provided compensation based on the current market value of the property instead of an amount that would have allowed the city to construct a larger, replacement facility. The Supreme Court upheld the court’s ruling that the normal market value was just compensation in a unanimous 9-0 ruling.
the next. In this way, when Chuck sells his land in the 3 plots, each
Development impact fees, or exactions, are an essential tool for local governments to mitigate the impacts caused by new development on public services, infrastructure, and facilities. California Proposition 13, enacted in 1978, increased local government’s reliance on exactions. Proposition 13 limits the tax rate and assessment increase for homes, businesses and farms, and thus dramatically reduced local government property tax revenue. To compensate for lost local revenue, many jurisdictions increased the amount of concessions exacted from developers in order to pay for the public facilities and services associated with the new development. This was the beginning of excessive exactions that became burdensome for many property owners and developers.
sell the land for money but at the same time lose their support for if the house should fall.
Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty. "Homestead Act." The Reader's Companion to American History. Dec. 1 1991: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.
A landowner has a right to file a case against encroachment of property. For example, if a person X parks his/ her car in the parking lot of person Y then person Y can file a case against person X under the encroachment law. There are many reason for encroachment such as inaccurate survey, no boundaries, etc.
Do you love visiting the beautiful National Lakeshores? Hunting, fishing, and camping with friends and family? There have been bills passed around the United States of America on whether or not government should be allowed to sell Federal and National lands. But there has been conservative and sports groups that don’t agree with this bill and has stopped it from happening.
First, relocation expenses are almost always handled outside any eminent domain action. A representative of the condemning agency will meet with the owner and discuss a fair and legal compensations, and if everything appears satisfactory to the
They have the right to sell, tax, and seize land due to delinquent taxes. The government has the right to regulate land use from building permits to zoning. This is called Police power enforced to regulate conduct or to protect the community’s safety, welfare and health. Property taken for government use without owner consent but with monetary compensation is called Eminent Domain. Generally, the government enforces this right when the property is necessary for facilities such as airports, roads, schools or public buildings. Contrarily, Inverse Condemnation is when the property owner forces the government to purchase their property because somehow, they have damaged or reduced its value. Another government right is the right to Escheat. If a land owner dies before bequeathing the property to someone else in a legal will, the state will obtain ownership and will usually sell it a public
Basically, since after the 2008 food price hike, the World Bank has been at the forefront of propagating private investments on lands with a win-win rhetoric that these deals would ensure food security for all as well as improve agricultural and living conditions in the host countries. Through its private sector arm – the International Financial Corporation(IFC) – and the Foreign Investment advisory Service (FIAS), the World Bank finances agro-investments, promotes and encourages policies aimed at cutting down on red tapes that could inhibit foreign direct investments in developing countries.