Eminent Domain - Justified Loss Of Property Or Tyrrany

[Relkin The Raider]

I wish to read some opinions on the eminent domain issue. I have had relatives that have lost land ownership to power lines, city encroachment, and a highway. One was not entirely decided peacefully, all lost in the end. The land that I live on has had family ties going back to the late 1850s. I can forsee that a certain rapidly expanding city has the possiblity of reaching my land in my lifetime. I can be a fiercely independant American. But when should a person take a stand on principle, when should they bow down before their government, for the good of the many. Your comments and perspective are welcome from outside the United States, just keep in mind that many Americans still have a strong sense independance and individuallity. Yes that is both a strength and a weakness. Eminent Domain, when is it justified?

[Kiljan Arslan]

I'm for it if the land that they are forcing the person to sell to the city will be for the public. If its for a private enterprise I am against it.

[Relkin The Raider]

(CBS) 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.

I believe in the UK they call it compulsory purchase, and in Australia its compulsory aquisition. I call it stealing even if they throw you a bone.

[kev-o]

Tyranny! If I purchase some land for myself the Gov has no right to take it. Simple.

[Thanatos]

Tyranny! If I purchase some land for myself the Gov has no right to take it. Simple.

I would say true, about 99.99% of the time.

[Kiljan Arslan]

If its for the public good and by public good I mean a thing like a school, new fire station, new police station, or a road, or highway expansion not some ******** like a new Best Buy is being built. Thats just wrong.

[Farnan]

Eminent Domain should have the following restrictions:

1. The property must be either used for government (such as a military base)or for public (such as a highway or park) use and may not be used to generate a profit.

2. All other options have been exhausted for doing such.

3. The property may only be taken if the need is imminent, and only after the neccessity of the government use is reviewed.

[Gelgoog]

usually its easier to pay someone for their land and force them to move then it is to reroute a highway.

[Evariste]

If its for the public good and by public good I mean a thing like a school, new fire station, new police station, or a road, or highway expansion not some ******** like a new Best Buy is being built. Thats just wrong.

How is Best Buy not for the public good?


Major department stores provide over dozens of jobs, hundreds of different products under one roof, and tend to stimulate the economy. Also, they can't legally bar anyone from entering unless they've got a good reason, just like public land.

How is a park any better?

[Kiljan Arslan]

please I'm not here to play devils advocate with you, if its going to be for a private buisness than I am against it okay.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

good of the many.

If the good of the Many have no qualms about bettering their own lives at the expense of the quality of your own life then you owe no debt to them.

[Kiljan Arslan]

If the many pay you for the trouble?

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

If the many pay you for the trouble?

And what if you refused and they still tried to move you ?

[Surgeon]

I am against private companies being able to take land on the grounds that their project will help the public. That's just unfair.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Well then your loss its known as being part of a society.

[Icefrisco]

This is perhaps one of the most important issues to me. I am usually very liberal but on eminent domain I have very fascist feelings. I really feel the government should have nearly unlimited power to use its country's lands. If used properly eminent domain can lead to the recreation of old forests and nature preserves. Also, infrastructure construction is very important to me and I would rather have it done in urban neighborhoods then in forested lands. People can quickly build a new home but rebuilding nature can take many years.

[Relkin The Raider]

Here is a definition:

Eminent Domain: the power of a government to take private property for public use; the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution and articles in many state constitutions allow this practice provided that just compensation is made.

This is the 5th Amendment:

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 5th Amendment is the justification used by the government to allow for eminent domain. But everything about the 5th Amendment leading up to the last partial sentence is about the rights of a person accused of a crime. Is it possible the 5th Amendment is being misused?

[The Prophet]

This is perhaps one of the most important issues to me. I am usually very liberal but on eminent domain I have very fascist feelings. I really feel the government should have nearly unlimited power to use its country's lands. If used properly eminent domain can lead to the recreation of old forests and nature preserves. Also, infrastructure construction is very important to me and I would rather have it done in urban neighborhoods then in forested lands. People can quickly build a new home but rebuilding nature can take many years.

I have a feeling this opinion will crumble once its your house.

[Icefrisco]

I have a feeling this opinion will crumble once its your house.

I wouldnt mind since I live in a pretty bad house. Its my family's house for years but I dont really care. How will my home benefit my children? I would rather have a park or forest that would allow many people to use the land and it would increase the value of the homes nearby.

[The Prophet]

You can only say that when it actually happens to you! Then we'll really see what you're made of.

It's easy to say you're such a principled tough guy on the net!