Eminent Domain - Supreme Court Style
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision - by a 5 to 4 margin - has extended the definition of eminent domain. In the past, this law has allowed local and state governments to take private property with reasonable compensation, for use in building highways, schools and redevelopment of blighted neighborhoods, and has extended it to now allow the taking of private property for the use by private developers for malls, office buildings or industrial parks.
In the past, the taking of private property ( read: a home owner's home and land) for a new highway or school was considered necessary if the project was needed and no other viable property was available. No private
property owner was pleased to have his home taken, but accepted it as a necessity for the public good. Under the new Supreme Court ruling, if Wal-Mart needs land to build a new store and can convince town or city government that it will bring new jobs and additional tax revenue, the Wal-Mart wins and homeowners lose. If the N.Y. Mets need land for a new stadium, the same principle would also apply. The public good use to mean everyone would benefit. Now public good means increased local tax revenue and lining a corporation's pockets.
As of this new Supreme Court ruling, all 50 states now need to pass legislation defining eminent domain to more narrowly mean what it has always been taken to mean. Otherwise no home owner's house and land is safe from corporate America.
6/24/05 ( 347 )
© Copyright 2000-05 www.mypov.org - All rights reserved.
Post Your Views On This Topic