Comments on: Eminent Domain Rules Officially Changed

By: Flexo

Flexo — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:51:43 +0000

Update: A town in Texas will use eminent domain to remove several businesses to make way for a marina.

By: Brian Samson

Brian Samson — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:24:00 +0000

I’m struggling with the impact of the phrase “economic benefit for the state”.

… just thinking about how far this could theoretically go … Government has valued my land and land-assets in order to levy taxes against me. At some point they feel my property is undervalued, given the larger, more expensive homes around me. Does this decision technically validation the possibility that the government could take my land, compensate me “fair value” (according to their assessment), tear down the house, rebuild a new larger house and sell the house? They may see an economic benefit on the sale itself, and they’d definitely see an economic benefit from the new taxes imposed on the property, given that a re-assessment would be performed.

The example may not actually happen on a single home, but given the propensity for local governments to use this rule, I could see it happening for entire neighborhoods. Is this legal justification for government flipping?

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:10:32 +0000

You might want to check out Scotusblog.com or http://www.volokh.com for commentary on the decision. While the court upheld the use of eminent domain, I wouldn’t characterize the holding as a change. Since 1954, the Court has pretty much said that public use is coterminous with the state’s police power (public health, safety, welfare, and morals) and you look at why the government is using eminent domain and not the end user. BUT that is referring to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says nothing about the limits that states can impose through their own constitutions. For example, both Michigan and Illinois supreme courts have, within the last 3 years, interpreted “public use” more restrictevely than the U.S. Supreme Court. What happened to Mrs. Kelo probably couldn’t happen in those two states.

By: jim

jim — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:58:58 +0000

This is especially bad in recent times because of the skyrocketing housing prices (ignoring the gross unfairness factor). Lots of folks can’t afford to “upgrade” homes in the first place… so anyone caught by “eminent domain” (unfair or otherwise) would be double screwed.

By: Michael Acord

Michael Acord — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:16:40 +0000

Its unfortunate that this practice has been going on for years and local courts have for the most part upheld it. The decision, however, makes this type of eminent domain practice unconditionally legal. Its a sad day for land owners.

-Mike

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:40:53 +0000

Your home is only yours after the mortgage is paid off AND you pay the TAX on it every year.
So you are essentially renting. Don’t pay the tax/rent and you wont live there much longer.