Owning property is a big part of the freedoms
that come with living in America. These freedoms are guaranteed, yet there are
exceptions that a land owner may have to face. The government has the right to
take control of real estate through the concept of eminent domain. When the government takes land through eminent
domain, it must be for a public use and for just compensation. Also, the land
owner has the right to sue the government through the due process system. The
problem with eminent domain comes through the ambiguity of the term “public use.”
The
process of eminent domain has been used in the past in order to build roads,
schools, and other services that are provided by the government. The lingering question
is just how far this power goes. Who has the right to decide what use is public
and what use is private? There is a large grey area between something that is
public use and something that is beneficial. Eminent domain has been claimed on
land simply for measures that benefit the community as a whole, without necessarily
being a property that gets used by the public (Vitullo-Martin). A positive
externality can very much benefit the surrounding neighborhoods. These
externalities could raise property values and help the community in many
different ways; however these benefits may not be tangible enough to claim them
as public use.
Many
in California have recently been affected by the government’s power of eminent
domain. The California High Speed Rail project has lead to the government using
this process to take land in order to build the track for the bullet train
project. Much of the land that is being taken is agricultural land, which is
the heart of the San Joaquin Valley economy. Also, much of this agriculture land
has been owned and farmed by the same family for multiple generations (Souza). Although
just compensation is guaranteed, many of the land owners do not feel that the
compensation is worth it. Many have grown attached to their land and wouldn’t
sell it for any price. This is to say that what a court determines just
compensation is very different than what the land owner considers his land to
be worth.
The
government may be the only entity that has the power of eminent domain; however
the issue does not stop at with the government. Many corporations have teamed
with the government in order to seize land that they need in order to complete
their projects. One such project that has been the cause of much controversy is
the Keystone Pipeline. This pipeline is being built in order to transport petroleum
from Canada and the northern U.S. down to the Gulf Coast. In order to complete this
project, specific land is needed to ensure the pipeline can fulfill its
purpose. Normally, if a person does not want to provide their land for use of
the pipeline, they would not have to. With the governmental backing of this
project, however, eminent domain can be used. This, however, is the start of a
very slippery slope of when the government is taking its powers too far. A
Canadian company named TransCanada, for example, is gaining land claiming
eminent domain because the U.S. government is backing the process. Many
citizens, however, are challenging whether or not eminent domain can be called
in this case. The situation will be reviewed and it will be up to the courts to
decide whether or not land could be taken in this manner (Kaufman and Frosch).
Eminent
domain is an essential right the government must have in order to maintain a
strong community. It can be used in many ways beneficial to those who are affected
by it. There is no doubt, however, that there is a grey area that surrounds the
government’s right to take land. Every time the government uses eminent domain,
the situation is different. Just compensation
changes on a property-by-property basis and the use the land being seized will
have also fluctuates. It must be determined how far the government can actually
take this right, without infringing on the rights of the land owner. The right
of eminent domain is a very sensitive issue and it is essential to examine each
case individually.
Sources
Kaufman, L. & Frosch, D. “Eminent Domain Has
Taken a Canadian Twist.” The New York
Times. Published on October 17, 2011. Accessed on April 14, 2013 at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/transcanada-in-eminent-domain-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Souza, C. “Farmers Learn About Eminent Domain
Process.” Ag Alert. Published on February
27, 2013. Accessed on April 13, 2013 at http://www.agalert.com/story/?id=5194
Vitullo-Martin, J. “Thinking About Eminent Domain.” The Manhattan Institute. Published on Feburary
2005. Accessed on April 14, 2013 at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/email/crd_newsletter02-05.html
No comments:
Post a Comment