Eminent Domain

[Constructive Anarchy]

The laws of eminent domain were originally designed to provide states and municipalities the right to appropriate land for the purposes of public improvement; building roads, schools, hospitals, etc. These laws also extend to the federal government for purposes of national defense. The purpose of eminent domain laws has been distorted in recent years to include taking property for the sole purpose of benefiting the share holders of private corporations. This must stop. Citizens should feel no obligation to obey unjust laws.

 

[leftwinger]

Too slow? Whats cowboy whining about? Pipeline is buried deep, no? He's lucky it is not a road. Trust me, I know.

 

[williepete]

The purpose of eminent domain laws has been distorted in recent years to include taking property for the sole purpose of benefiting the share holders of private corporations.

Thanks for the post but keep researching. Local governments have been abusing eminent domain for years to tear down low income properties for development into high income--HIGHER TAXED properties to fatten the city/county purses.

Great post but tell the whole story.

Eminent domain, also referred to as “condemnation,” is the taking of private property by local, state or federal government for a “public use” or “public purpose.”

The Evolution of Eminent Domain Law
Historically, eminent domain has been used to take private property for highways and other public works. But in 1954, in the landmark Berman case, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of “public use” to grant local governments broad authority to condemn “blighted areas” to improve them. The ruling in Berman cleared the way for urban renewal projects in the 1960s and 1970s, as the definition of “public use” gradually expanded to include economic development purposes.

Eminent Domain: Private Property Rights v. Economic Development – SGR Law

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

The purpose of eminent domain laws has been distorted in recent years to include taking property for the sole purpose of benefiting the share holders of private corporations.

Thanks for the post but keep researching. Local governments have been abusing eminent domain for years to tear down low income properties for development into high income--HIGHER TAXED properties to fatten the city/county purses.

Great post but tell the whole story.

Eminent domain, also referred to as “condemnation,” is the taking of private property by local, state or federal government for a “public use” or “public purpose.”

The Evolution of Eminent Domain Law
Historically, eminent domain has been used to take private property for highways and other public works. But in 1954, in the landmark Berman case, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of “public use” to grant local governments broad authority to condemn “blighted areas” to improve them. The ruling in Berman cleared the way for urban renewal projects in the 1960s and 1970s, as the definition of “public use” gradually expanded to include economic development purposes.

Eminent Domain: Private Property Rights v. Economic Development – SGR Law

Had you actually watched the video you would have realized that the gentleman in question is being held financially responsible by the pipeline company because he's sueing them. I'm sure that sounds completely fair to paid energy company shills.

 

[williepete]

I've been following eminent domain cases for years. Won't get into the details of why but I know of the abuse and the creep of its original intent.

Again, thanks for the post. This topic needs more sunlight.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Eminent domain is how Trump is going to get the Keystone pipeline through Native American sacred grounds.

Just watch. Why? He's got investments connected to the pipeline.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Eminent Domain is necessary for a functional society...As long as land owners are treated with respect I don't see a problem.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Eminent Domain is necessary for a functional society...As long as land owners are treated with respect I don't see a problem.

really? All cases of eminent domain? Even the corrupt ones?

Of course your statement is meant as a generaliztion

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Donald Trump’s history of eminent domain abuse

quote

in the 2005 Kelo case, the ruling was widely denounced on both left and right. But Trump defended it stating that “I happen to agree with it 100%. if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and … government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and … create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.”

 

[RGR]

The laws of eminent domain were originally designed to provide states and municipalities the right to appropriate land for the purposes of public improvement; building roads, schools, hospitals, etc. These laws also extend to the federal government for purposes of national defense. The purpose of eminent domain laws has been distorted in recent years to include taking property for the sole purpose of benefiting the share holders of private corporations. This must stop. Citizens should feel no obligation to obey unjust laws.

Feel free to decide what laws are just or unjust and act accordingly. NAMBLA feels the same way, undoubtedly. And the public good happens to also involve moving petrochemicals around, making sure energy supplies are stable and accessible, and that might include national security as well as the participation of corporations.

You have a particular beef with GovCo working to protect you, including from yourself?

 

[RGR]

Eminent domain is how Trump is going to get the Keystone pipeline through Native American sacred grounds.

Just watch. Why? He's got investments connected to the pipeline.

So? Maybe he is doing it because he didn't like Obama's response, which was to ban the safer forms of petrochemical transport in favor of vaporization of civilians who happened to be nearby when a tanker car comes by and falls off the rails in some neighborhood.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

The laws of eminent domain were originally designed to provide states and municipalities the right to appropriate land for the purposes of public improvement; building roads, schools, hospitals, etc. These laws also extend to the federal government for purposes of national defense. The purpose of eminent domain laws has been distorted in recent years to include taking property for the sole purpose of benefiting the share holders of private corporations. This must stop. Citizens should feel no obligation to obey unjust laws.

Feel free to decide what laws are just or unjust and act accordingly. NAMBLA feels the same way, undoubtedly. And the public good happens to also involve moving petrochemicals around, making sure energy supplies are stable and accessible, and that might include national security as well as the participation of corporations.

You have a particular beef with GovCo working to protect you, including from yourself?

I'm sure you'd be inclined to make the same argument if a pipeline were going through your front yard.

 

[The Professor]

Eminent Domain is necessary for a functional society...As long as land owners are treated with respect I don't see a problem.

Eminent Domain is necessary for a functional society...As long as land owners are treated with respect I don't see a problem.

In some cases, Eminent Domain is necessary and beneficial to society; however there are cases in which it is unfair and unjust. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, “... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” For many years, the phrase “public use” had been historically defined as being accessible to the public. Such public uses included the building of roads, schools, libraries, airports and the like. However, In Kelo v. the City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the Supreme Court ruled that the term “public use” could be interpreted as “pubic purpose.” Under the “public service” interpretation land could be taken from one private owner and transferred to private developers. The purported public purpose was an increase in tax revenues.

The problem with taking private land for a public purpose - as opposed to a public use - is that the process is an invitation to fraud, corruption and abuse. The best example I can think involved a case in Riviera Beach, Florida, in 2006. The mayor and the Riviera Beach City Council attempted to use eminent domain to seize more than 800 acres of waterfront property occupied by about 5,100 residents, most of whom were middle class African-Americans. The plan was to transfer the land to Viking Properties for a massive private project including a yacht marina, luxury condominiums, upscale hotels and other private commercial uses.

Actually, Florida had it's own laws for eminent domain. In the case of Kelo v. New London, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution allows the taking of property for private economic development, but it also provided that states may offer more protection. The Florida legislature did just that. Governor Bush signed the law on May 11, 2006. However, to skirt the law Riviera Beach’s City Council voted on the night of May 10, 2006, to authorize an agreement with developer Viking Harbor Inlet Properties that the City would use eminent domain to take property for the project.

As a result of that questionable agreement, the predominantly African-American community of 33,000 voted the mayor out of office and elected a new City Council. Responding to public outcry, the newly elected officials announced that plans to use eminent domain were off the table. As a result of the City's actions a law suite filed on behalf of the property owners by the Institute for Justice (IJ) was withdrawn.

Now you might think there was no problem as long as the property owners were legally compensated. But many of these families had lived in the area for generations. They were not asked to merely give up a piece of property; the were expected to abandon their neighborhoods; their source of identity and pride. Some of their yards no doubt had trees planted by their parents or grandparents. Every time they would gaze upon the new luxury condos and yacht marina they would be reminded that their own lives were not as important as those of the wealthy class for whom the project was built. There is no way these families could receive sufficient compensation for their losses.

The only way these property owners could be treated with respect is too leave them alone to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Note: Here are a few links for those who want to learn more about the case involving Riviera Beach, Florida:

Riviera Beach, Florida Eminent Domain - Institute for Justice

Riviera Beach Homeowners Celebrate Victory Over Eminent Domain Abuse - Institute for Justice

 

[RGR]

I'm sure you'd be inclined to make the same argument if a pipeline were going through your front yard.

Grew up with 2 gas wells on the farm, gathering lines for them as well as the tie in to the main line. So of course would make the same argument, are you saying you lived near a pipeline and it did bad things to you? Or, as most folks near pipelines know, not much happens.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The laws of eminent domain were originally designed to provide states and municipalities the right to appropriate land for the purposes of public improvement; building roads, schools, hospitals, etc. These laws also extend to the federal government for purposes of national defense. The purpose of eminent domain laws has been distorted in recent years to include taking property for the sole purpose of benefiting the share holders of private corporations. This must stop. Citizens should feel no obligation to obey unjust laws.

Feel free to decide what laws are just or unjust and act accordingly. NAMBLA feels the same way, undoubtedly. And the public good happens to also involve moving petrochemicals around, making sure energy supplies are stable and accessible, and that might include national security as well as the participation of corporations.

You have a particular beef with GovCo working to protect you, including from yourself?

I'm sure you'd be inclined to make the same argument if a pipeline were going through your front yard.

I would have been fine with that, actually, as long as the check clears!