Essay: Eminent Domain

Eminent domain is a land use method that restricts the rights of the owner versus the community under police power (Levy 2013). The rights of the property owner, safeguards, profits, and the constitution push and pull each other in opposite directions.
Many ordinary citizens consider eminent domain as government stealing. Some reasons come under regulatory actions. Actions such as legislations limiting the land use of private property. This often imposes a loss in property value for the property owner. The process involves “public purpose”, (Levy, 2013). It is the power of the state to take private property for its use with compensation to the owner. In a perfect world, this power is for the need to build roads, highways, bridges, insertion of city utilities for electric power, sewers, flood control to save lives and property and many other land uses the state considers a necessity. However, under the theory of a perfect world, there would be no need for arguments for the process of eminent domain. That is not the case in the world we live. There are times when the ambitions for monetary profits will interfere with administrating the regulations of taking private property with compensation, for government use. The potential for abuse of power can be a sweetheart of a deal for any well connected developer who may unfairly profit from the transfer of eminent domain land use. It is safe to say that the eminent domain policies of federal, state and local governments are administered properly, and with validity. In many cases however, protests, objections, negotiations, and legal proceedings are a normal part of enforcing regulations for eminent domain. Ordinarily, developers are looking for the most desirable and the least costly way ahead. This sometimes results into court proceedings. “The legal process for eminent domain is called condemnation (https://howstuffworks.com/ED, p.3 2016). There are different the paths the ED process can proceed with. If the property owner agrees with the sale, the government issues payment, and the deed is handed over. When the property owner disagrees with the sale price, the two parties attend a hearing where fair value is established. The property owner may request a jury to make the decision. This may vary from state. There are cases when the property owner refuses to sale entirely. If this happens, the government files a court action and post public notices. The government must prove its case that the take-over is for a legitimate public use. If the government wins, fair market value is established, the property owner is issued a payment, and the owner is evicted. Both sides have the right to an appeal. In the last method of ED, is referred to as the taking. The process is complete taking of the land, partial taking, temporary taking, and the right of way, or easement taking (Levy, 2013). Technically called, “the regulatory taking in practice”. How does ED differ from zoning? Zoning regulations controls the land use of property, not just private property. Unlike eminent domain and purchasing property, zoning control land use. Land use such as how property may be developed. Developed as residential, commercial, recreational, medical facilities, industrial zoning, and others. Zoning does not involve the direct taking of property and issuing fair market value compensation. How does ED differ from police power in relation to government taking control of private property? Personally speaking, there is no difference in police power and eminent domain when it involves the taking of property for public use. “June 6, 2013, Missouri land owners win eminent domain court test case”(www.watchdog.org, 2016). This court case involves the Missouri Port Authority VS Velma Jackson and Alicia Seabaugh. The port authority wanted to use eminent domain to acquire 30 acres of land in Scott county along the Mississippi river and lease it to a private company. The company wanted the property to transport oil by rail from North Dakota onto river barges. The decision issue rested upon the court’s interpretation of a 2006 law and ruling limiting the use of condemnation for economic development. The law states “property cannot be taken for economic development”. The Missouri Supreme court held for Velma Jackson & Alicia Seabaugh. The state of Missouri Port Authority was forbidden from continuing its pursuit of eminent domain. The state lost.
Property Owners Lose in New York; “The Supreme Court upholds the eminent domain case”. The case of Goldstein vs New York State urban Development Corporation. The dispute was between home owners and commercial developers. The corporation intended to build a massive complex including a home for the New York Jersey’s Nets. The New York court of appeals ruled the state may seize privately owned property for commercial development. The developer won this case. The plan included building 16 new high rise towers and a new arena for the New Jersey Nets. The court sided with the politically well connected.