What do you think about the practice of Eminent Domain?

26 comments

  1. I’m not a fan. I get why its occasionally needed, but it feels like government overreach. It definitely should not be used like Reddit (I only see it come up when people want to seize private property to build trains) keeps saying it should. It’s a last resort.

  2. Kelo v New London is one of the most unanimously loathed Supreme Court rulings of the last 100 years for a reason. It’s an exceedingly rare case where I agree with Scalia.

  3. If used strictly for government purposes, for infrastructure projects like a highway that is desperately needed–then sure. I’m not a huge fan, but sometimes you have to make ugly decisions. And I strongly support fair market value being paid–and not some sort of substandard valuation based on some funky math so the local government can save a buck.

    But using eminent domain to transfer property to another private party–that’s absolutely shitty. And I think [Kelo v City of New London](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) was incorrectly decided.

  4. Kelo vs New London was just *wrong*, and there’s little chance of an overturn because it makes people money.

    RBG fans note: she voted with the majority on this.

  5. That is one subject that can get me *very* academically heated. Any chance I get I’ll write a paper about it

    The harmful and negative long-term legal impact of the destruction of Poletown, Detroit is undeniable

  6. I’m torn on it. I don’t think it should be used for private development. Like a stripmall would not be a legitimate use of it. It would have to be for public use.

    I also don’t like the idea of land being taken, even when compensation is given.

    I do, however, understand why you would want a city planned in a certain way, and that doing that would likely involve using land that is already owned by individuals.

    Overall, I’m not the biggest fan of it, but I’m not completely against it. My state seems to be decent about it. Land cannot be taken “for transfer to any private person, nongovernmental entity, or other public-private business entity.”

    The original land owner also has the right to buy the land back at current market price after 7 years, if the land was not used for the original purpose for which it was taken.

  8. For railroads and some other things I’m ok with it, but ASU has tried to use it far to many times for my liking.

  9. My hometown used to flood a lot.

    The solution was a dam, which would fix the flooding and create a lake. Unfortunately, the lake would cover a portion of the town where a lot of residents lived.

    There wasn’t a discussion, the residents were given money and told to vacate. The dam was built, the flooding stopped, and now we have a nice lake.

    If it is used to better the location and locals are fairly compensated, I’m ok with it.

    If houses are demolished for say a shopping mall, then it is misused.

  10. Americans support it, evidenced by their voting for politicians whom do not oppose it.

  13. If it’s necessary for public infrastructure, AND there are no reasonable alternatives, it should be allowed. However, people who are being deprived of their property should be paid double the fair market value.

    It should never be allowed for commercial development.

  14. Has to be necessary, for legitimate public use, and the government should pay fair market value plus 50 percent.

  17. Utterly absurd. The only time that kind of thing should be legal is A. seizing assets that were not gained legitimately and thus that the *convicted* criminal has no right to or B. forcibly selling their assets in order to repay any debts they have from things like embezzlement or fraud or the like. Anything else is just legalized theft by the government.

  18. I hate the idea of it, but life is complicated.

    I work for a city where real estate is very expensive and a lot of people want to live here. We also have a huge office building (the white elephant) that has been sitting unused for decades in an extremely convenient spot in the midst of all this rapid development. It brings down the value of the properties around it and it has sat empty for so long that the whole thing is probably a tear-down.

    Even a libertarian would have to admit that this building is a good example of what Eminent Domain is for. If the owners can’t get their shit together and sell it or develop it, then the city should take it and use it for city services or something.

  19. It depends on who the government serves. If the government is using eminent domain in service of the people then I support it. If the government is using eminent domain in service of capitol (most common) then I do not support it.

  20. Imm pretty sure only the government is allowed to do that. I mean, I don’t know much about it, but I think it’s probably for the good of everyone.

  22. It has a place, but I think it’s used far more often than it should. It should really be a last resort sort of thing for incredibly important infrastructure projects.

  23. When it’s clearly done for business related to city officials…it’s fkd up. Usually it’s done for the greater good of community which its supposed to be done for. In many other countries it’s just…move with no compensation. It is what it is.

  24. I’m not a huge fan of it, but understand if it’s for the public good.

    This reminds me of a story from a few years ago. A locally-based private company had an occupied apartment complex torn down so that the company could build a driveway for their new corporate headquarters. Not so that they could put the actual building there, just the entrance to the fucking driveway. Said building is well away from the former apartment complex, so I have no idea why the occupants had to leave, especially because there’s another apartment complex literally on the other side of the new driveway entrance that they didn’t see fit to get rid of, even though it’s almost as close to the driveway as the one that was torn down (mind you, I’m happy those people were not displaced). I’m especially mad about this because there was an abandoned mall not too far away and they probably could’ve used that site instead.

  25. It’s (unintentionally) Marxist and unconstitutional. The government does not have an inherent right to someone else’s property.

  26. It ought be used sparingly, and, if so, I would want the government to be forced to pay above market rate when doing so. It should be a last resort.

    That said, there are situations where it becomes a bit gray, and I’m not sure what should happen. Take [Airport Highlands](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Airport+Highlands,+Birmingham,+AL/@33.581805,-86.7425096,16z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x88890ff8c657bfbb:0xbe121be16d6df6de!8m2!3d33.5818077!4d-86.7403801!16s%2Fm%2F0480grr?hl=en&entry=ttu) for example. The Birmingham Airport is buying land around it to reduce the amount of people affected by the noise (The airport is five miles to downtown. So it’s really close in.). However, they’re not exactly forcing people off, just buying the property once they decide to leave. The effect as of right now is a practically empty area with fully set up power lines for the few residents who stay. It’s been awhile, so most of the houses are gone, too. So you get an area with roads, proper road signs, street lamps, an occasional mailbox, and basically nothing else but wilderness before you hit an occasional occupied spot. It’s this weird dissonance of in some ways being well kept, and other ways completely not (It looks like the grass is mowed and there are signs for no dumping, but dumping obviously occurs). If everyone was gone, they could shut down the services to the area.

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like