Public interest Vs Right to private property
By lilwonders
@lilwonders456 (8214)
United States
April 21, 2010 8:58am CST
It is called eminent domain and I am sure all of us have heard of it. It happens all the time. In most cases it is your house. A company wants to build a shopping center or some other business....on your property. You don't want to sell...but the government steps in and tells you have to. You have no choice. They say the public good outweighs the private property rights of some citizens. So basically the state can say...you can't own your property anymore and you have to take whatever price they offer you...get out or else.
What do you think of the state being able to take your property from you and give it to private company for their personal gain? Is eminent domain constitutional? Would you get rid of the law?
3 people like this
17 responses
@laglen (19759)
• United States
21 Apr 10
I understand the need for imminent domain. But I think it should NEVER be for private business and should ONLY be used when no other option is there. I think our government uses this recklessly.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
I agree. Our government uses it recklessly. It should only be used for government needs and NEVER for private business. But it happens all the time.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
23 Apr 10
Good luck with that. I have seen a lot of people try to stand up to it and they almost always loose.
It means changing state laws. So the place to start is your State house of representatives.
1 person likes this
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
21 Apr 10
The Supreme Court ruled on a very important case on this in 2005 that not only could the state force a sale of propertty for it's use but now any company or organization could also force you to sell if they could show that it was a benefit to the comunity. One mans idea of benefit might be different than anothers idea of benefit.
Capitalism once again trumps individual rights in the US.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
22 Apr 10
There was a lot more to it than Capitalism... the town wanted to increase it tax revenue and was backing the eminent domain claim on behalf of the company in question.
You might think it was capitalism, but there was also a whole lot of government greed involved of the local variety.
When business and government work together in that fashion, that is called fascism.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
It is called corporatism not capitialism. And it does not surprise me Walmart uses dirty tactics to get what they want.
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
22 Apr 10
Wal Mart is famous for doing this. They just get the city to tell the owner that the property is a haz-mat site and cannot be sold to anyone but the city then the city sells it to Wal Mart at a greatly reduced price thinking that it is an actual benefit to have a Wal Mat in their city.
With the supreme court ruling now they don't have to subvert the owner they can just take the property.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
21 Apr 10
I'm not against eminent domain if it's for a legitimate public need and the owners of the property are appropriately compensated. Unfortunately the vast majority of people get screwed by the government and get an insulting pittance before being thrown off their property. Those who can afford to challenge it in court I've heard get a fair result, but there are places where you CAN'T challenge the "offer" the government gives you an that's where you really get screwed.
One positive story was with a friend of mine. His parents in Orlando were told by the state of Florida that an overpass was being constructed that would overlap with their property. They were given the option to sell their property to the state and when they refused the state offered to pay them for amount of their property that would be overlapped. They were actually happy with that deal as it basically meant they got money for nothing. It probably killed the resale value of their home, but they were happy just to stay in the house.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
I know I have heard of a lot of them not gettin good offers on their property. ANd not really having a choice if they want to sell. Glad to see things worked out well for your friends parents.
@palonghorn (5479)
• United States
21 Apr 10
Where I used to live, big city, there was a lady that owned a prime piece of property, it had been a farm, but the city had grown up around her. They (companies and real estate agents) tried many times to go and talk to her, wanting to buy it. She ran several off of her property.....shotgun in hand! It is now a shopping center, after she passed away, the heirs sold it. I've never heard of the state 'taking' property for a private company. I do know that if the state is building a road, and they need a right of way, they can buy that piece of property from you and there is not much you can do to stop that.
1 person likes this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
21 Apr 10
...they changed that recently.. and if the town can, say make more taxes with the proposal of a company, the state/town can claim eminent domain.. I think it is very wrong and a very dangerous trend as to government powers vs power and rights of the people.. Eminent domain as it is now practiced is quite outrageous and outright shocking!! It's due to a supreme court decision in the late 90(?)'s
@sid556 (30953)
• United States
22 Apr 10
Oh I am so against this. It does happen though all the time and it's just wrong. In the little town where I work, they wanted to put up a by-pass. In order to do that, they would have to take so many houses by eminent domain. These were people that had lived here for years and years. So many people were against the bypass because of what it would do to the wild life and also because of what it would do to so many people in this little town. Still they persisted and ignored the petitions of the people. They got their way and took several homes and the people moved on. Still the local people fought and fought and it got scrapped. Now I can only imagine what those homeowners that lost their homes for no reason are thinking. IT's just wrong.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
Yep...basically they legally stole their homes....and it happens more than you think.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
Eminent Domain is abused by corporations to take what they want.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
22 Apr 10
This is a tough question. There are times in which eminent domain has been used to create, or save thousands of jobs. There are also times when eminent domain has been used just because someone wants something they can't have, and it really doesn't do the public any good. Personally I feel that there should be a benefit to the public of either job creation (over 500 people), or to save people from environmental effects (health problems). I do believe that they can make it much harder for governments, and corporations to use this if they forced the private corporation and the government to split the cost to purchase the land, and for all parties to pay double what fair market price is for the property. This way everyone wins, and if a corporation doesn't think the land is worth it, they won't do it. I don't think currently it is constitutional for this to happen, but the supreme court has ruled it is. I would modify the law like I said.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
23 Apr 10
Like I said Lil, if you double the fair market value for the property than I am sure you will see a dramatic drop in these cases. Or you will see a lot of happy land owners. Either way, a much better end than what we see today.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
I agree with what you have said. There are times that it is truely needed. But those are rare. Mostly it is used by corporations to take something they want that someone else owns. The laws need to be changed to make it harder for that to happen.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
22 Apr 10
Eminent Domain was never intended to be used to benefit private companies... it was intended for those times when there was an overwhelming public need.
Railroads and public highways were the most common uses, although I have seen it used for building sites as well.
I think that there are very few legitimate uses for it these days.... not by the government, and certainly not by private companies.
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
22 Apr 10
I think it needs to be rewritten to the point where it's use is very rare... it should be used only for extraordinary reasons as an absolute last resort.
I actually believe that repealing this law would be ideal... although can see where it may possibly be needed for real reasons, and not to satisfy tax or greed incentives.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
The law needs to be re-written to stop corporations from being able to use it.
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
22 Apr 10
The government has the constitutional right to take your property for public use if , and only if, it pays you the fair value of the house (5th amendment). I think it sucks, but there's a good reason for it.For example, my hometown has houses pretty much as close to the main street as you can get. Traffic has gotten REALLY bad and the city has been wanting for years to create another road to ease it up (thus causing less accidents), but every time they try the citizens vote it down because they know that some of them will have to lose their houses for the road to be built. They could just seize and pay for the necessary properties, but they don't have the backbone to do it.
I'd personally like to see it changed so that only in cases where the property can be used ease a community/societal issue, like a new road so less accidents happen on the main one, or a community health center in a town which has no medical center, or some other REAL public need. The public does not need a shopping mall.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
YOu are right..a shopping center is not a public need. The law should not be used to help corporations. It is for government use only.
But try telling the corporations that.
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
22 Apr 10
I live in one of the only states in the union in which it is ilegal to excersize emminent domain for private companies and interests. Land can only be taken by eminant domain for public use here, so somethinglike a shopping mall or factory or resort would simply not be legal use of the procedure in this state. A bridge,road,or that sort of thing is one thing.....malls and resorts....nope, not here...."live free or die"
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
The more I hear about your state...the more I like it. Too bad you guys get snow.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
21 Apr 10
I'm not a fan of eminent domain but I wouldn't want it done away with, no. I remember when Interstate 95 was being built...a major north/south highway along the east coast designed as a solution to the problem of increased traffic clogging the roadways in thousands of cities and towns. A few homes not far from mine were in the way and I'm certain there were other properties in the way in many other states this highway runs through. Without the availability of eminent domain this project would not have been possible.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
21 Apr 10
My brother-in-law is a developer so I'm a little bit familiar with the process of doing this. The first step in the process is getting the approval of the city/town/county commissioners. In order to do this they have to submit a plan during a public meeting which would include information about the property they want to locate on, infrastructure plans and why this project would be beneficial to the community. Members of the community can also speak in favor of or against hte project and then the commissioners can approve or deny approval.
If any parts of the property are privately owned and the project is approved, the developer must attempt to purchase the property. The developer is not going to low ball the purchase offer because he's going to have to convince the commissioners that he treated the property owner fairly and that the property owner is being unreasonably unfair in order to have them agree to use eminent domain to force the sale of the property. Again, this would take place during a public meeting.
Some areas do need shopping centers, malls, hotels, etc. The commissioners are elected officials so they have an incentive to rule based on what's in the best interest of the community since it's the members of that community who vote.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
21 Apr 10
I can understand it being used for government purposes..road..schools..etc.
But what about when it is used to help private coroporations. Like using "eminent domain" for building shopping malls, hotels, etc...
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
It does not matter if they treat the property owner "fairly" or not. It is not "fair" if they are forced to sell against their will. It is their property. They bought it. Paid property taxes on it. If they don't want to sell...they should not be forced to do so.
I know a lot of cases where the developer "low balled" the property owners and then used the government to make them take the deal.
@snowcat46 (2322)
• United States
21 Apr 10
Yes, as it is used anymore it is very unconstitutional. If it was to be used for the greater good, that's one thing. But anymore it's a tactic used by big business to get rid of smaller business. A few years ago, a certain city decided to use eminent domain to get rid of a bunch of small businesses. These places were run by single owner, first time businesses. There were 4 of them in all. After they were displaced, "for the greater good", a large business that owned a corner near them was allowed to expand to take over their spaces. It was all a ploy to allow this big business to have more room. They displaced 4 small businesses and owners, and hired 2 new employees.
I can't see that for being for the greater good, except in the big business sense. As far as the people are concerned, no one wanted this. Everyone was up in arms about it. Fat lot of good it did anyone.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
I have seen communities try to fight it...but the big corporation usually wins. It is wrong and a shame.
@cbjones (1147)
• United States
22 Apr 10
I think it sucks that someone can lose their land in such a way. The public good is something that no corporation should try to sell off on anyone. Their agenda is all about profit. They don't care anything about the public, or anyone's private property.
If I had the power to do so, I'd get rid of, or at least alter the law so the land owner has more of a choice in the matter. If you want to drive of the price for the property, then you should be able to do so. If you want to just flat out say "This is mine. Go away, please," you should be free to do that as well.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
I agree. The property owner should have the right to say if they sell the property or not. They own it...it is theirs...so it should be their choice.
@epicure35 (2814)
• United States
28 Apr 10
"Eminent Domain" is a concept that has been sorely and criminally misused. It is horrendous that the state would steal one's property to give to another, but it happens all too often. That is unconstitutional and criminal. Unfortunately, there are always creeps and power mongers who will misuse something that may be of benefit in a certain restricted context, and misapply it for their own criminal intent and gain.
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
22 Apr 10
There's a role for eminent domain, but I'm not crazy about the latest interpretation; that is, businesses can "convince" commissioners, etc. that their projects benefit the public and outweigh private parties' property rights. I'd like to see it revert to a stricter definition.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
22 Apr 10
I agree. It should be for "government" use only...not for the private sector.
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
22 Apr 10
There are times when private property is truly needed for the public good. The building of the interstate took my grandparents property, so I understand the frustration with eminent domain. We loved that property; but while we hated that they lost this property, we understood the need for the highway. For reasons like that I would not get rid of eminent domain. However, when it's a for profit venture, I don't believe that should qualify under eminent domain; and if the state insist that the property owner sell his property to the buyer, I think it should be at the property owner's price.
@mysticmaggie (2498)
• United States
22 Apr 10
I think it is a horrible law that diminishes our right to property and the profits we buy the property with the intention of making. Very seldom is the full price offered, and if you decide to fight, you might end up with less or worse, nothing for all the pains you took in owning the property.
I think it should be repealed. I don't care for hotels, etc. being built on the property and I'm not terribly fond of farmers losing land because some strange little creature - like a rare bug is found on his property. Move the bug and let the farmer do what he needs to do to make a living - farm.
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
23 Apr 10
Generally I would get rid of the law. If I understand correctly, the law was originally meant for the purposes of protecting the nation.
For example, say during the Spanish American war, a company of troops in combat, ran out of bullets. Eminent domain allowed the government to seize personal property, such as arms or munitions for the purpose of protecting the nation.
From that perspective, I would agree.
Sadly, like all governments, our has twisted this around to allow government to do... pretty much anything it wants, in the name of for the public good. (ignoring that the people whose homes they confiscate are the public, and it isn't for their good).
In which case, I'm completely against that, and it should be eliminated as a law.
