Premium Essay

Eminent Domain

In: Miscellaneous

Submitted By mystic1
Words 343
Pages 2
Lancaster California located about 45 minles from Los Angeles, was trying to build its local economy but was tripped up by the United States constitution. Costco, a big box retailer, wanted to expand into next door space leased to 99 Cent Only Stores. Costco told the city it would move to Palmdale if it could not expand. Lancaster tried to buy 99 Cents' lease, but the company refused. Lancaster then used its power to emenent domain to condemn the 99 Cents property for the purpose of making city contrasted 99 Cents property for the purpose of making it available to Costco. the city noted that blight might follow if Costco left, and the city contrasted 99Cents' under $40,000 per year in sales taxes generated with costco's more then $400,000. 99 Cents then sued the city seeking an order blocking the effort to take the 99 Cents property

Eminent domain allows states the right to take over private property, at fair market value, for public use. Due the declining economy of Lancaster, I would rule in favor of the state to take over 99 Cent Only Stores Property thereby allowing Costco to move in. The additional sales tax generated by allowing Costco to take over the property of 99 Cent Only Store would allow Lancaster to continue independently as a productive county. The present negative of eminent domain, in this case, wieghs far less than the positive outcome of ruling in favor of Costco.

B. Would the result be any differnet today after the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in the New London, connecticut case? Explain
According the to Supreme Courts ruling, the city can file for eminent domain even if the economy is not blighted. The result would be the same today; however, prior to ruling in favor of the state, I would require Costco's development company to provide a commitment for funding. Without the benefits of funds to develop Costco, then the obvious decision…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Eminent Domain

...Student name Institution name Date Introduction Question: Is the policy of eminent domain providing for the public welfare, through the taking of privately owned property, using a rightful procedure involving due process and just compensation as it was intended to do when the policy was founded? Eminent domain is the inherent power of the government to take over a citizen's property for public use without the owner's consent. Initially, this public policy originated in the Middle Ages throughout the world. It became part of the British common law before reaching the United States where it was then illustrated in the US Constitution in 1791 (Britannica: eminent domain). The Fifth Amendment granted the federal government the right to exercise eminent domain, provided protection to individuals, and protected the property rights of citizens. Shortly after the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the federal guarantee of “just compensation” applicable to the states. The use of eminent domain power to promote economic development, particularly in urban centers of the United States, has become the focus of significant controversy in this present day. This is commonly done when the acquisition of property is needed for the completion of certain project. Projects intended for the public good such as highways, bridges, schools, and government buildings have been created from Eminent Domain. The policy pertains to every independent government. It requires very......

Words: 3810 - Pages: 16

Free Essay

Eminent Domain

...Eminent Domain Under the Fifth Amendment of United States Constitution, the government is provided the power to enforce eminent domain and take private property for public use. This provision allows this provision as long as adequate compensation is being made for the property. Article 1, Section Seventeen under the Texas Constitution prohibits the taking, damaging or destruction of property for public use without adequate compensation. Generally, there are four elements of eminent domain but ultimately the actor must be the state or a private party authorized by the state to condemn the property. The power to condemn must be conferred by the legislature and only upon a two-thirds vote of both houses will it be granted. The primary private parties that are empowered to perform eminent domain are gas or electric corporations, groundwater conservation districts and common carrier pipelines. Once the property has been identified, the Condemner must provide plans for the public project and indicate the exact location of the private land needed for the project. Once this information is acquired, a declaration must be made that certain property rights must be obtained to complete the project and that all property owners involved must be notified. Element one consists of the property taken must be for public use and in 2009, voters approved a constitutional amendment further clarifying public use. To understand the purpose of public use, it is necessary to note it is......

Words: 965 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Eminent Domain Paper

...When Should Eminent Domain be Used? When should a city or state use their eminent domain powers? Over the past few years there have been a couple of cases that raised the questions of when eminent domain should be used. One of the most controversial cases in the history of the United States was the Kelo v New London Supreme Court ruling. In order to generate tax revenue, add jobs, and to prevent bankruptcy, the government’s right to initiate eminent domain for public good is a necessary evil. Eminent domain in definition is “the right or power of public purposes without the owner’s consent on payment of just compensation” (“Eminent Domain History”). Eminent domain has been a part of the United States ever since the constitution was created. Eminent domain is not stated in the constitution. However, it is implied at the end if the Fifth Amendment, " [no person should] be deprived of life, liberty, or property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (U.S. Constitution). Eminent domain is not new to the United States. The first eminent domain case was “in 1879 the Supreme Court, in the case of Boom Co. v. Patterson, (98 U.S. 403) said that eminent domain appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty" (“Draw the Line”). After World War II, eminent domain was used on a regular basis. "In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Berman v Parker that private projects meet the definition......

Words: 1214 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Eminent Domain Case

...were all replaced within the past five years. We feel as though this should not be figured into this amount as a deduction with depreciation. Note: revenues from gas station and convenience store/food mart sales grosses around $1 mil per year. This was also the case fifteen years ago when the owner ran the gas station and convenience store himself. We have daily income sheets from the prior renter reflecting this data. This would be severely impacted with the change of the business, of the change in access, and in the change of parking. REQUEST FOR SECOND APPRAISAL If our counter offer is not accepted, we wish that a second appraisal is performed by a licensed appraiser who specializes in both gas stations/convenient stores and eminent domain. 15 | P a g e COUNTER OFFER TO SUMMARY/OFFER TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY Submitted to the State of North Carolina Department of Transportation WHO WE ARE Silver Bullet, Inc. C OUNTER C LAIM R EQUEST SILVER BULLET, INC., BUSINESS   $580,000 DAMAGES TO REMAINDER $188,000 VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BE ACQUIRED $768,000 Gas Station WILLIAM “BILL” YOUNG, PROPERTY OWNER  Convenience Store $46,000 VALUE OF RIGHT OF WAYS (INCL. ADJUSTMENTS FOR EAST ENTRY) $16,000 VALUE OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT (RENTAL OF LAND) $116,000 DAMAGES TO REMAINDER $920,000 PURCHASE OF TOTAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ACREAGE, BUILDING, AND IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS)    Food Mart $1,098,000 16 | P a g......

Words: 7890 - Pages: 32

Premium Essay

A State’s Right of Taking Under Eminent Domain or Police Powers

...Professor Aragon Real Estate Law – FIR 4310 23 April 2015 Essay Assignment A State’s Right of Taking Under Eminent Domain or Police Powers Johnny Appleseed’s 356 acre fruit orchard was flooded and, as a result, he lost his crop for that year in addition to fruit trees that were damaged beyond repair. The government released water from a damaged dam to prevent it from catastrophically flooding a valley below. The question is was this a taking under the state’s right of eminent domain, therefore requiring compensation, or a taking under the state’s police powers, therefore no compensation is required. In my opinion, the damage to Johnny’s fruit orchard is a taking under the state’s police powers; therefore no compensation is required. A “taking” defines as “to acquire possession or control of something” (Herman). However, the practice of eminent domain do not provide a clear context of taking, thus American courts put it into three categories: per se takings, regulatory takings, and exactions. Johnny’s case could be under the regulatory takings category. “Regulatory takings demand a fact-intensive, multi-factored inquiry into whether the governmental action amounts to an unreasonable interference with one’s private land rights, as to trigger the takings clause” (Herman). But first, I want to define what police powers and eminent domain are. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, police power is “in U.S. constitutional law, the permissible scope of......

Words: 768 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Eminent Domain

...KINGSFORD CHARCOAL ASSIGNMENT (10 Points) 1. The Kingsford Charcoal case takes place in July 2001. 2. Kingsford’s primary competitor is gas grills. Most people do not want or have the time to spend on getting charcoal ready for grilling; therefore, the concept of convenience, greater control over cooking temperature, shorter cooking times, and ease of clean-up makes the selling points for gas grilling. 3. The two ways for Kingsford to determine variables that segment the market, they are heavy Kingsford users and gas grill users. The “heavy” Kingsford users can be segmented into “Regular Exclusive”, “Instant Acceptor”, and “Instant Exclusive” (Exhibit 9). Gas grillers can be segmented into “own gas only grills” or “owns both”. 4. SWOT Analysis example for Kingsford would looks like: a. Strength: Established brand b. Weakness: Advertising budget c. Opportunity: Number of US grilling events have more than doubled since 1987 d. Threat: Increasing trend of gas grills shipments (Exhibit 5). 5. Use Exhibit #10 and compare the 4 scenarios below: a. The pricing scenario that resulted in the smallest reduction in dollar sales is the “Minimum (2.5%) Blue Bag Pricing Increase” (#2). b. The amount of the smallest decrease in dollar sales is $1,110. c. The pricing scenario that resulted in the greatest increase in profits is the “Total Line pricing (5%) Increase”. d. The amount of the greatest increase in profits is......

Words: 697 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Kelo vs New London

...Kelo vs City of New London The Kelo vs City of New London case is one that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States with the issue involving eminent domain. Eminent domain is the transfer of property from one private party (Kelo) to a public party (City of New London), with proper compensation. The case brought to light the difference between what is considered to be public use and what is the best public purpose. Susette Kelo and fellow property owners owned property that was condemned by the city of New London to be used as further economic development. The properties were taken from the owners due to the fact a pharmaceutical company named Pfizer Inc, was planning to build a facility in the area which gave the New London Development Corporation the motivation to develop the surrounding area to help increase the current New London economy. The property was to be used as a redevelopment plan which was promised to generate 3,169 new jobs and tax revenues of $1.2 million per year. The court decided in a 5-4 decision that the benefits given to the community outweighed the benefits of Susette Kelo owning the property; the courts determined this as permissible public use under the Fifth Amendment. The City of New London had agreed with Susette Kelo to compensate for moving the Kelo’s house to a new location and substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The property eventually became an empty lot which was then transferred to a city dump due......

Words: 1437 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

What Constitutional Issue Did the Supreme Court Take the Case to Answer, and What Was Its Answer?

...ownership right in all land. This right is known as eminent domain. Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property from a citizen, even when that citizen refuses to voluntarily sell the property. In the United States, use of the eminent domain power is limited by a clause in the Fifth Amendment of the constitution, which states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. Long established purposes for the eminent domain power have been for the building of roads and public buildings, but it has become increasingly common for state or local governments to use the power for redevelopment projects. The city of New London, Connecticut established a private development corporation to redevelop a neighborhood near the shore of Long Island Sound with the goal of revitalizing the depressed area. A group of home owners, who lived on the targeted land, including Susette Kelo, decided to fight the issue rather than allow their homes to be destroyed. The Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London established that eminent domain can be used for economic redevelopment projects. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling against the homeowners established that the Fifth Amendment's "public use" requirement is merely a "public purpose" requirement. The City of New London only needed to anticipate that the public will benefit in some way in order to justify a given use of eminent domain. New London anticipated that its......

Words: 279 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

5th Amendment

...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......

Words: 362 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Case 3

...would help to revitalize New London, is it just for the city to appropriate private property around Fort Trumbull? a. I believe that New London treated Kelo and her neighbors as fair as they could. The proposed development would hope to attract new development, which would help revitalize the community and bring in tax revenue. I believe it’s just for the city to appropriate private property around Fort Trumbull because of their power of eminent domain. 2. Are towns such as New London and Salina pursuing wise, beneficial, and progressive social policies, or are their actions socially harmful and biased against ordinary working people and small-business owners? a. I believe that New London and Salina are pursuing progressive social policies but their actions are socially harmful to the homeowners of the areas that they are taking over with their eminent domain right. 3. Do you believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government? Explain why or why not. a. I believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government. I feel this way because you are being compensated for your loss of property with either money or land or both. If the area where your home is located is potentially a prime area that could bring in new development and revitalize a community, I think that it is only fair that you are relocated for the sake of the community. 4. “If” ‘just compensation’ is paid, then by definition those who lose......

Words: 547 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Kelo Et Al. V. City of New London Et Al.

...of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, reactivated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a non-profit entity for land development in the city, specifically the Fort Trumbull area vacated by the U.S. Navy. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed an interest in locating a research and production facility in the area. The city advised the NLDC to move forward with its plans. Over 90 acres of property were purchased and acquired through eminent domain for the development of residential housing, recreational, marina, retail and industrial parcels. Of the 90 acres, thirty-two of the acres came from Fort Trumbull and the remainder from private owners. All private owners, except 15, sold to the city for the project. The remaining 15 held out not for money, but for emotional and sentimental reasons. The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the taking of the private property under eminent domain. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and grouped all 15 cases in one appeal. IV. LEGAL ISSUES: Is the use of eminent domain to acquire property by the government and redirect for private use repugnant to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”? Is the taking of property from A and giving it to B for economic development a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment? V. COURT DECISION: In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Connecticut......

Words: 1569 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Eminem Domain

... | Eminent Domain: Being Abused? July 4, 2004 [pic] |[pic]The City of Lakewood, Ohio was trying to use | | |eminent domain to force Jim and Joanne Saleet out of | | |their house in order to make way for expensive | | |condominiums.  (AP) | | |Quote | | |[pic] | | |"For them to come in and tell me how much my | | |property's worth and for me to get out because they're| | |bringing in somebody else when I own the land is | | |unfounded to me.” | | |Shop owner Randy Bailey of Mesa, Ariz. | | |[pic] | | (CBS) Just about everyone knows that under a process called eminent domain, the government can (and does) seize private property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse. But did you know the government can also seize your land for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good"? Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing. Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's......

Words: 1946 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay


...Poletown video is a documentary which describes a city that was destroyed because General Motors wanted to move in and build a new plant. General Motors was allowed to take over because of eminent domain. It was deemed an eminent domain because the new plant was supposed to create more jobs which would help the economy. From an urban ecology stand point it hurt more then it helped from the beginning to end. The neighborhood was not doing well economically but it did have sentimental value along with diversity. They would be taken out their homes and put somewhere less comfortable. This is why the residents of Poletown were so upset with the government’s decision. It led to destruction of homes, businesses, churches a school and a hospital. Since the city wasn’t at its best in value the properties owned by people were to be bought for less than it is worth. People started to rebel and carry guns with them all the time to protect themselves and their homes. Those who didn’t want to continue the fight took the settlement money and went their way. The police were hardly there it didn’t even seem like a neighborhood anymore so the fight with the people of Poletown and the government became very weak. It seemed like a good idea from a political standpoint because it was suppose to build up the economy. Since the city wasn’t in its prime they paid less for the property which means more to invest for the auto plant. When the people rebelled by burning down their house it actually......

Words: 491 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Business Damages

...Research Paper April 27, 2001 House Bill No. 197 – Business Damages House Bill 197 is a bill that amends Idaho Code Section 7-711 in regards to business damages in eminent domain or condemnation proceedings. The article, “Valuing Business Goodwill Loss in Eminent Domain Cases” by Robert Trout defines a condemnation as: The process of taking private property for public use through the power of eminent domain (government). Trout states, The loss of property causes economic damages consisting of lost tangible asset values and, when appropriate, lost intangible asset values, primarily business goodwill. Tangible assets are those that show up on a balance sheet, including real property. Examples include land, buildings, and equipment. Intangible assets are other assets of a business that can be individually identified and valued. Examples include trademarks, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, customer lists, and goodwill. (Trout) Business damages are new just last year (2000) to Idaho law. Prior to that there were no laws stating that a condemnor had to pay a condemnee for their business loss due to the acquisition of new property. Being so new, Idaho does not have a definition of goodwill. California does however, and the lawmakers there identify it as: [B]enefits that accrue to a business as a result of its location, reputation for dependability, skill, or quality, and any other circumstances resulting in probable retention of......

Words: 1161 - Pages: 5

Free Essay


...could suffer a catastrophic flood. The engineers acknowledged that releasing the water in the recommended manner would cause some limited flooding. As a result, Mr. Appleseed’s fruit orchard was flooded and he lost his crop for that year and many trees on his property were permanently destroyed. I will present my argument that this temporary flooding was a taking as defined by our text and was done so under eminent domain. When a property is taken in this manner the owner is justly compensated for the loss according to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Keywords: eminent domain, taking, temporary flooding The practice of taking by eminent domain is deeply rooted in history long before it was written about in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term itself was taken from the legal treatise De Jure Belli et Pacis, which was written by Hugo Grotius in 1625. Grotius, whose various texts are considered the foundations for international law, defined the power as follows: The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is......

Words: 1221 - Pages: 5