Yeah John,

James and I have argued about this case before. And I'm sure we will again ;-)

Have you heard of the Institute for Justice? They handle a lot of cases like this. I'm very impressed by them.

http://www.ij.org/

I get their newsletter, which is a great source of material and, if I had any extra money, I'd consider sending a donation their way.

do you have those emails kris? i know we talked about it, but i forgot why i had the opinions that i did.

i remember having a not-very-popular opinion, though

I might. I'll forward them back to you later if I can find them.

Normally when private land is taken to build a road or a park for public use, the ownership of the land transfers to the public (the government). This case, however, is about taking private land and transfering it to other private owners who will make the land available for public use.

Privately owned, open to the public (the normal retail business model), is different from publicly owned available to the public (the community swimming pool model). The term "public use" is meaningless without reference to the property that is being "used".

If the amount of revenue a government can receive from a property is the determining factor in exercising the right of eminent domain, then the whole concept of private property in mute. If the government can transfer ownership based on the highest bidder, then there is no right of private ownership, only a right to fair compensation as determined by the government.

the point above is correct, and makes good points. however, cities have been transfering land to private individuals for a while now, this isnt the first case of that.

im reminded of a hawaii case (US SC) from 50 years ago in which exactly that happened - back then, about 6 people owned all of the land in hawaii. the government used its eminent domain power to take it and sell it directly to private citizens. i forget the reasoning (and the name of the case for that matter) but from what i remember the idea was that it was in the government's interest to promote private ownership of land by a large # of individuals. so there, as here, the land passed from one private citizen to another.

i dont think that the amount of $ the city can receive is the "determining factor" - the city has other interests as well, i.e. an interest in 'revitalization' for quality of life or planning purposes. so while the tax $ is a consideration, there are others as well.

im all for an individual's right to do what he wants with his land, however there is also a problem with the idiosyncratic hold-out that won't give up his land for a reasonable price - i.e. if a developer is trying to buy up 100 parcels, the first 90 might go for $100, but the last 10 will have each have an increasingly high value. the last 1 might be worth 100 times what the others were worth. if the person is idiosyncratic and refuses to sell at even that price, then the value of the 99 other parcels drops, and the land isn't put to an efficient use. why should the last person get the unearned "windfall?"

the idea of the government taking land and transfering it to private individuals bothers me, but i also dont think that a person should have unlimited discretion to stop "progress" or to be a general pain in the ass just because they happen to "get there first."

after taking property law, most law students come to the realization that there isn't really a "right" to private ownership of land in most of the US. property taxes, zoning, and land use laws leave US land "owners" more in the role of tenant or steward.

to take it to one extreme, imagine if john rockefeller had bought up all of the land in ohio 100 years ago. do you really think that his heirs should now be permitted to refuse to sell any portion of it?

Its time to repeal intamate domain its just a unconstitutional law to steal peoples law without just compenstaion as reqired in the U.S. Constitution its time to end this for good

Obviously the sentimental vote would be in favor of the neighborhood, especially if all the homeowners are united in wanting to stay. But history and the 5th Amendment tell me that they won't. The words are clear: Private property can be siezed for public use if justly compensated. These people are not being thrown out onto the streets, they are getting big money (the developers are going to build for a pharmaceutical company...that's big bucks) in return. The Amendment does not say "and only if there is good reason", nor does it say "public use that benefits EVERYBODY". Historically, the Supreme Court has always gone in favor of the state and/or government w/ the reasoning being that if tax revenue will increase, it is good for the government, which in turn will be good for the people. The Court are actually "helping" the people this way. The homeowners will just have to be great negotiators and get as much as they can and forget about sentimental attachment. Unfortunately, some people will get hurt: renters won't get any money, and to keep with Justice Sandra D's little analogy, the Motel 6 owner will make out, but the maids are all out of a job.

Rv

the 5th amendment> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/