Digital Watches
Smash Ace
I wouldn't be surprised if most of you haven't heard of this particularly nasty clause in the laws of numerous places, as most governments don't like it to get a lot of press.
Eminent Domain, simply put, is the ability of the state to seize private land for public or government use. Make sure you're sitting down: This gets worse. But the good news is that the US (as well as most other countries wherein the law is in effect) at least makes this a bit less harsh than it sounds initially:
The very recent (2005) supreme court decision of Kelo v. City of New London ruled, effectively, that the power of eminent domain could be used to transfer land from one private owner to another (usually a corporation) for the alleged benefit of the state. The exact case was that a pharmaceutical company was given seized land that had previously contained numerous private residential and commercial lots, the information is available wherever supreme court decisions can be found. This sets, in my opinion, a rather terrifying legal precedent. What was once another legally-shady facet of the governmental tendency to pander to the interests of corporations is now fully legalized and can be done summarily and outright. Essentially, local competitors to corporations can be eliminated on a whim, people can be forced out of their homes to build malls, and corporations are being given preferential treatment and given prime real estate by city, state, and federal governmental bodies. Wikipedia has a running list of significant examples of this practice that have been facilitated by the Kelo decision. But I suppose it could be argued (as it was in the supreme court case) that when moves such as this in some way benefit the economy of whatever jurisdiction the governmental body involved controls, it can still be considered "public use."
So how far should Eminent Domain go? Should the Kelo decision stand? Should the government be allowed to thusly pander to the interests of corporations? Even without this seemingly obvious abuse, is there any real necessity for such laws even in situations where the property would actually be used for public purposes? Should people just quit complaining and take the money?
Eminent Domain, simply put, is the ability of the state to seize private land for public or government use. Make sure you're sitting down: This gets worse. But the good news is that the US (as well as most other countries wherein the law is in effect) at least makes this a bit less harsh than it sounds initially:
So it's a forced sale rather than just taking it. The reasoning behind this law is obvious: For the good of the public, the government must sometimes build something, be it a road, a park, or some other useful thing that will overall improve the lives of the people. Sometimes someone's house just happens to be in the way, so ostensibly, now the government can take it from them for market price and go on with the project they were previously working on, thus aiding the greater good. Of course, there are those who would disagree that this should be within the governement's power, but for those against it, it gets worse:The Very Last Bit of the US Bill of Rights' Fifth Amendment said:
The very recent (2005) supreme court decision of Kelo v. City of New London ruled, effectively, that the power of eminent domain could be used to transfer land from one private owner to another (usually a corporation) for the alleged benefit of the state. The exact case was that a pharmaceutical company was given seized land that had previously contained numerous private residential and commercial lots, the information is available wherever supreme court decisions can be found. This sets, in my opinion, a rather terrifying legal precedent. What was once another legally-shady facet of the governmental tendency to pander to the interests of corporations is now fully legalized and can be done summarily and outright. Essentially, local competitors to corporations can be eliminated on a whim, people can be forced out of their homes to build malls, and corporations are being given preferential treatment and given prime real estate by city, state, and federal governmental bodies. Wikipedia has a running list of significant examples of this practice that have been facilitated by the Kelo decision. But I suppose it could be argued (as it was in the supreme court case) that when moves such as this in some way benefit the economy of whatever jurisdiction the governmental body involved controls, it can still be considered "public use."
So how far should Eminent Domain go? Should the Kelo decision stand? Should the government be allowed to thusly pander to the interests of corporations? Even without this seemingly obvious abuse, is there any real necessity for such laws even in situations where the property would actually be used for public purposes? Should people just quit complaining and take the money?
