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
