Eminent Domain Essay

814 Words2 Pages

There are so many issues in regards to real estate. One of the most concerning issues seems to be Eminent Domain. Eminent Domain is the power of a national state or government taking a private property for public use. An example would be building roads, schools, malls, or even highways. Is Eminent Domain really being constantly abused? I believe so since i decided to write about this issue. The land can be taken with no argument as long as it is used for the "public good". That makes it ok some how. When the property is taken the government pays you a price that they believe is fair market value. Sometimes they are paying them more. People are practically being forced off of their land so their homes can be replaced by more expensive homes …show more content…

The City of Lakewood would make their profit off of property taxes. So the question is how is this for the "public good"? The Saleets have worked so hard to have this beautiful home. Jim Saleet and his wife Joanne paid this house off and they wanted to retire in it and pass it along to their children. They have not given up. "The bottom line is this is morally wrong, what they 're doing here. This is our home. And we 're going to stay here. And I 'm gonna fight them tooth and nail. I 've just begun to fight," said Jim …show more content…

This is not the only case. There are ongoing cases of Eminent Domain. People are just not backing out. One of the most known cases is Kelo vs The City of New London. This case was argued February 22, 2005 and decided on June 23, 2005. Connecticut wanted to condemn a real property so that it can be used for redevelopment. The developer abandoned the propery because he was unable to recieve financing for it. Susette Kelo sued the City of New London. Her house was seized a long with plenty of others. The City said that they would use the property to create jobs and to increase tax revenues which they did not. Kelo along with the rest of the owners said that the City violated the Fifth Ammendment taking clause. The Court eventually ruled for the City of New London. This was such a surprise and people are still wondering how this occured. They believed that the land was being used for the "public use" and they were following a development plan. The Court ruled for New London because the Fifth Ammendment did not require literal use but just public purpose. The more i read about these cases the worse it is. Eminent Domain is being abused. Peoples lives are changing and it is simply not the right thing to

Show More
Related

  • Troubles with Eminent Domain in Iceland

    542 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Hawaii Housing Authority versus Midkiff

    991 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Land Reform Act of 1967 permitted the state of Hawaii to redistribute land by condemning and acquiring private property from landlords (the lessors) in order to sell it to another private owner, in this case, their tenants (the lessees). The Hawaii State Legislature passed the Land Reform Act after discovering that nearly forty-seven percent (47%) of the state was owned by only seventy-two (72) private land owners. That meant that only forty-nine percent of Hawaii was owned by the State and Federal Govermnet.The contested statute gave lessees of single family homes the right to invoke the government's power of eminent domain to purchase the property that they leased, even if the landowner objected. The challengers of the statue (the land owners) claimed that such a condemnation was not a taking for public use because the property, once condemned by the state, was promptly turned over to the lessee (a private ...

    Read More

  • The Crossroads Development in Mahwah

    1453 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Committee to Stop Mahwah Mall, a grassroots group of citizens concerned over this perceived miscarriage of justice, formed in response to the rezoning. The Committee worked over the next few months to collect signatures for a petition requesting the Township place a nonbinding referendum on the November ballot. In addition, the Committee raised enough fund in order to retain an attorney, Michael Kates, who filed a lawsuit against the Council on the Committee’s behalf.

    Read More

  • Arizona V. Hicks

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    Overall this was a great case to read. Arizona v. Hicks held that the 4th Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. Again the major facts of this case were that the police had initial entry into Hick’s apartment. Even though it took place without a warrant.

    Read More

  • The Court Case of Clinton v. The City of New York

    835 Words  | 2 Pages

    There have been many, many court cases throughout the history of the United States. One important case that I believe to be important is the court case of Clinton v. New York. This case involves more than just President Bill Clinton, the City of New York. It involved Snake River Farmers’ as well. This case mostly revolves around the president’s power of the line item veto.

    Read More

  • Palmer V Mulligan Analysis

    1342 Words  | 3 Pages

    Palmer v. Mulligan (1805), resembled the case of Merritt v. Parker (1795), however with a different outcome. In Palmer v. Mulligan, Palmer was suing Mulligan to damages caused by his mill. Palmer’s mill burnt down and Mulligan built a new mill up river, so Palmer had to rebuild his mill further into the river in order to get enough water flow, this caused Parker to loose logs that were floating down river and he had to hire more labor to ensue this didn’t happen. Since Mulligan’s mill was upriver trash from his mill was floating down river and hitting Palmer’s mill causing damage. The court found in favor of Mulligan saying that Palmer’s problems were his own because Mulligan was not altering the flow of the river in any way, and that the “injuries” to his mill were being caused by the natural flow of the river and it was nearly ‘slight inconveniences’. (Palmer v. Mulligan 3 Cai. R. 307; 1805 N.Y. Lexis 343). This case showed the shift in favor to competition and the idea that competition was a good thing. It also demonstrated that not all interference with property would have been compensated. The law shifted to favor competition over prior appropriation. The law shifted from “sic utere” to “salus populi” reflecting that the welfare of the people should be the supreme of the law. (Salyer). It was seen that the people

    Read More

  • Shawnee Chief Tecumseh Thesis

    701 Words  | 2 Pages

    The land of the Native Indians had been encroached upon by American settlers. By the

    Read More

  • flegg

    965 Words  | 2 Pages

    The decision of the House of Lords in City of London Building Society v Flegg marks a key stage in how the balance is drawn between occupiers and creditors in priority disputes; the seeds of which were originally planted in the Law of Property Act 1925. It posed a serious challenge to the conventional understanding of overreaching and the machinery of conveyancing.Ref ?

    Read More

  • Land Rights in Australia

    786 Words  | 2 Pages

    people have been living there for a for a long time and he does not want the

    Read More

  • Discrimination Against African Americans In The 1800s

    413 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Plessy v Ferguson case was an example that there was still discrimination in America. In 1890, Louisiana passed a law called the Separate Car Act that says all railroad

    Read More

  • Conflict Between Andrew Jackson And The Cherokee

    1197 Words  | 3 Pages

    To own land, that is the privilege of whom? To Andrew Jackson the Cherokees current homesteads where on his country’s land. For whatever reason at that time some people living in America weren’t treated as good as there white counterparts. Meanwhile the Cherokees principal chief John Ross felt like that land belonged to his people. If you want to get technical he was speaking on the behalf of a tribe that made up a mere one-eighth of his ancestry. Not exactly a full blooded leader. He also was one of the main reason the “trail of tears” was as hostile and brutal as it was on his people. Its ironic, even as hard as Jackson pushed and deceived the Cherokee, the Cherokee people in turn pushed back, but past the point of being rational.

    Read More

  • Afro-descendants in Latin America

    1574 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...eas about the other to discredit claims to the land and present themselves as better caretakers before potential decision-makers.

    Read More

  • The Uncostitutional Restrictive Covenants

    687 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Censorship in Schools

    2166 Words  | 5 Pages

    Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...

    Read More

  • Eminent Domain Essay

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    Eminent domain is defined as the right of the government to take private property for public use, with the payment of compensation to land owners. Laws surrounding this subject have become more controversial of late, as many feel as though they’re not being paid their fair share for their land and that these government projects have not been beneficial to the U.S. economy. However, projects made possible through eminent domain have had a variety of effects on not only the national economy, but also personal finances.

    Read More

More about Eminent Domain Essay

Open Document