Eminent Domain
It used to be thought that Eminent Domain did not mean that the government could not take away private property and transfer it to another private entity. (There are minor exceptions to that but I won't get into detail.) First lets look at what laws affect me:
Federal Constitution, Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights:
Michigan Constitution, Article 10 Section 2:
Well, what is public use? It had been thought that public use meant that the government could only take your private property in order to convert it to public property. For example, they were going to build a road, a military base, a school, park land, or things of that nature. A case coming out of New England had a local government condemning decently kept houses and businesses. They want to take that property and hand it over to a private developer. Essentially they were robbing Peter of his land and giving that land to Paul. Their justification? It will provide a better tax base and make the community look better. Does the term public use really include that? Hell no! It may cause a benefit to the public but the public does not use it. It's still private property, subject to the wishes of the new owners. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, disagrees. Apparently, a community's desire for greater tax revenue meets the constitutional requirements for eminent domain.
Let's say you are fortunate to live in one of the states where your property taxes are based on the value of your home at the time of purchase. And let's say that you were really fortunate in that your property quadrupled in value in the five years you lived there. The government has the right to kick you out of your house and sell it to another person because the government would be able to get more taxes from the new owners.
This is completely outrageous.
See also Eminent Domain Watch.
Federal Constitution, Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights:
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Michigan Constitution, Article 10 Section 2:
"Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefor being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law. Compensation shall be determined in proceedings in a court of record."
Well, what is public use? It had been thought that public use meant that the government could only take your private property in order to convert it to public property. For example, they were going to build a road, a military base, a school, park land, or things of that nature. A case coming out of New England had a local government condemning decently kept houses and businesses. They want to take that property and hand it over to a private developer. Essentially they were robbing Peter of his land and giving that land to Paul. Their justification? It will provide a better tax base and make the community look better. Does the term public use really include that? Hell no! It may cause a benefit to the public but the public does not use it. It's still private property, subject to the wishes of the new owners. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, disagrees. Apparently, a community's desire for greater tax revenue meets the constitutional requirements for eminent domain.
Let's say you are fortunate to live in one of the states where your property taxes are based on the value of your home at the time of purchase. And let's say that you were really fortunate in that your property quadrupled in value in the five years you lived there. The government has the right to kick you out of your house and sell it to another person because the government would be able to get more taxes from the new owners.
This is completely outrageous.
See also Eminent Domain Watch.
Comments