If a town needs a new road and it's okay to seize property to build the road, or a town needs a school and it's okay to seize property to build a school, then why, if a town needs jobs and increased tax revenue, is it not okay to seize property to create the same?
Is it easier to justify taking lower class homes due to cost? Consider that when the government seizes homes, compensation is provided at what is supposed to be fair market value. Obviously, it is a lot more cost effective to purchase a block of $50,000 homes than to buy a block of million-dollar homes. Does this difference justify taking homes in poorer areas for public works projects?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 5:31 am ad1c9bdddf
Your first paragraph has to do with eminent domain under the 5th Amendment. As you may know, in order for a government to claim eminent domain, 4 elements must be met: (1) the land taken is private property (2) the land must be taken (3) the taken property must be for public use (4) and the property owner must receive just compensation for the property.
The question you pose has to do with the 3rd element, the property must be for public use.
In order to determine whether a taken property will be for a for public use, the courts will first determine if the the property will be used by a broad segment of the general public. As with any definition, public use was later ...
This solution concisely explores eminent domain under the 5th Amendment.
Kelo vs. City of New London summary
The case of Kelo vs. City of New London recently gave the US Supreme Court the opportunity to deal with the main issues involved in the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
What were the main issues that the court dealt with in that case?
How did the court resolve the issue?View Full Posting Details