5th amendment continued......
The government can't take agricultural property (branches, farms, barns) in California, for one person, and then sell to a private person.
Founding fathers had in mind of eminent domain as in real property (land), and not other types of usages for eminent domain, like the attempt to take personal property. In CA, our supreme court they don't see a distinction between personal and real property from the standpoint of eminent domain. Examples: The CA decision came in connection with the Oakland raiders. The Oakland raiders were proposing to move to L.A, but the city of Oakland believed that the Raider's team was associated with the city of Oakland, and at the time it really was. Back In the 1970's and 80's when the raiders were winning games, you couldn't get a ticket to the stadium unless you had season ticket, they were that popular. The city of Oakland said, if we lose the Raiders then it's going to be a bad blow to the morale of the city. They proposed to take the Raiders from Al Davis (the owner of the Raiders) by eminent domain. Al didn't want to sell and it went to court, and the CA supreme court said "we don't see any problem, in theory, with personal property being taken by eminent domain,"; however, they didn't rule the issues on what the city of Oakland proposed to do. The city planned to buy the team from Davis, then sell to individuals who promised they would leave the team in Oakaland. They were going from one private person to another. The CA supreme court didn't deal with issues, they dealt with the issues if eminent domain could be used to take private property as opposed to real property. It ended up going to the trial courts to see if it was legal to sell from one private to another, and the trial court, said no they don't approve taking from one private and selling to another, so the city lost. They could have one if they took the team and ran it as a city department, like how green bay packers are own by Wisconsin.