Talk:Eminent domain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] us. not en.
--66.109.216.124 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)'It is becoming increasingly obvious at Wiki that the vanity domain 'en' cannot be further from the truth. Also, it could only have been proposed by people in a nation who think 1) English is the same everywhere; and 2) 'we count the most'.
'Compulsory purchase' is the term that applies in the English speaking world, and even here Australia has another term.
Further down the line - and we are already further down that line, way too far down that line - the idiosyncrasies of 'US English' are going to become a burden, as 'US English' is not at all as 'UK English' neither as spoken, with word usage, or in writing, and becomes a major annoyance for English speaking (and reading) people elsewhere.
It is a further grievance because it reinforces the belief of peoples outside the US that people inside the US see the entire planet as belonging to them, belonging to their US, belonging to their culture, and using their curious variant of the English language. This attitude is often perceived as one of arrogance, and as such cannot avoid creating 'bad blood'.
That the majority of people on this planet are in fact at least bilingual from birth and have much broader cultural references only serves to make this issue more sensitive for the great majority of netizens who use Wikipedia now and in the future.
[edit] Help put other country material
I would like to see the case law etc for Canada, UK and Austrailian the otter common law States. Bona Fides 14:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"In law, eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property"
Should this read: "In common law countries?"
Do authorities with civil law jurisprudence have the same concept?
Is "eminent domain" used at all in Britain? I'm British, have some interest in planning matters, and have never seen it used with reference to this country, only where (eg) the USA is being referred to.
Should there be a seperate entry for "condemn" for the meaning "the legal process whereby real property, generally a building, is deemed legally unfit for habitation due to its physical defects"?
[edit] "Regime" ?
should it really be referred to Castro's "regime?"i worry that the 'R' word is too negatively charged, and violates NPOV. This is a small part of the artical, but i dont want to change it if i am wrong about the NPOV part. --Whiteknight 01:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the Dictionary definition of Regime, it seems to be a fairly neutral word. However, Connotations of the word in everyday speech may differ somewhat from the dictionary definition.--Wahooker 12:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
regime simply means controlling authority or dominant coercive authority. a regimen is an habitual rule. Regimes continue until they are changed just as habits do.
I can tell you that physicists use the term all the time without any worry about its connotations. e.g. "The response of the device in this regime is linear." It just means "range of operation", in much the same way as here it means "span of time". Strait 05:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Case Law in US
There is of course Parker v. Berman and the infamous Michigan case of Poletown. They set the discussion of Midkiff and kelo in its place. These two cases show how expansive the state power to take is, i.e. how liberal a view of public use is. However, when the use is clearly private, like as a cable TV, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Teleprompter' that even using an inch of the outside of an apartment building is not allowed and against the 5th amd's takings clause. John wesley 17:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Expropriation
Why does expropriation redirect here? Eminent domain is a specific legal regime - the broader concept of expropriation should not be housed here. Rd232 12:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Agree - FrancisTyers 22:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New laws limiting eminent domain in U.S.
I don't have time right now to incorporate this into the article, there it is if anyone wants to tackle it before I get to it. This is about a backlash against government seizing private land for private development. RJII 19:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Getting What They Want
Believe it or not, in some cases, the land owner gets the amount of compensation the actually want! I interviewed a lawyer who has been practicing eminent domain law for the past 32 years. He explained that if a piece of property is needed, although not needed at that particular time, it cannot be condemned. In lay terms, they can't take the property and simply hold it. If they forsee a need for the property, like building overpasses across a major intersate, they must pay the owner whatever he or she wants. to quote the lawyer, who shall remain nameless, "If the property is worth five hundred thousand and they want a million, we pay a million." Great to hear that this happens at all, eh?
[edit] Slight Addition
Added "June 2005" to the ruling date of Kelo vs New London, as the February 2005 arguement distinction is confusing.
[edit] Calder v Bull
This citation seems to me inappropriate. Chase's opinion at least appears focus on whether or not the CT law in question was ex post facto, and the question of eminent domain doesn't come up. Can the original contributor comment? Axamoto 17:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Compulsory stock acquisition
It would be good to see some information here about compulsory stock acquisition, if anyone knows anything about this! Steved424 20:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree, I'd be happy to draft something but where would it go? (I actually think it should be on a separate, disambiguated page) 203.45.42.178 09:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eminent domain in Muslim law?
this revision by 131.216.165.194, now reverted, added mention of Muslim law in 'Origins'. Anybody know if there is a genuine basis for this change, or was it merely a troll? Steved424 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Do tenants, not owners, have rights in Eminent Domain cases? (Need info Penna.-specific)
Hey everybody,
I'm a reporter with the Philadelphia City Paper and PlayPhilly.com. I'm writing a story about the misuse of eminent domain in the Market East neighborhood. I need some answers and/or guidance on a prickly issue.
My question: does the principle of just compensation apply only to owners, or does it also apply to non-owner tenants? I'd especially like to know what the law says in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia.
- Given that an owner in fee-simple is ostensibly a tenant who pays rent in the form of property tax, to the allodial title holder (the state or its county and municipal subsidiaries), eminent domain should theoretically apply to any level of tenancy, including people who rent from the fee-simple title holder. If a renter has a contract that is terminated early without just cause (because the fee-simple owner was served with eminent domain proceedings), they are suffering a taking and should be compensated, although I'm not sure to what degree this is supported in law.
The situation: the Pennsylvania Convention Center will be expanding and in the process demolish the Gilbert Building, which is home to 30 artists and arts organizations. From a qualitative point of view, it is not a "blighted" neighborhood; the expansion also makes little economic sense.
This aside, the tenants of the building are alleging legal foul play on the part of the city's Redevelopment Authority (RDA). They say the RDA intends to purchase the property so it can expel them without just compensation.
- If it purchases the property, it should be bound to the terms of prior lease agreements and can only refuse to renew each lease as it comes due. If the tenants are on a month to month rental, they may have less rights due to their short contract. That being said, the tenants only own the stuff in their rented space, they don't actually own the space other than a right to occupy it for a given term of their lease.
The grey area: reading up on the laws, I've found that the RDA may in fact be following eminent domain protocol. If they are providing an appraisal to the Gilbert Building's owner, and if he accepts it and then the agency purchases the property, this is normal procedure.
- Yes. Eminent domain really only means "you have to sell to us because ultimately we are the real owners of the land, but we have to give you fair market value for it". Eminent domain cannot legally be used to muscle owners to accept lower prices, though this is often the case in states with strong eminent domain powers.
Again, any guidance on this issue would be greatly welcomed! --Christopher Schwartz
[edit] philosophy behind eminent domain
i think this article could be improved with some information on this topic (ie eminent domain and justice, ect.) just a suggestion; i don't know much about eminent domain, so i probably wouldnt be qualified. ZypheR 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'
Hi, someone vandalizes the introduction of this article... "the colon to poop"
[edit] Public benefit
It has been wrongly stated that current Supreme Court standing favors eminent domain for public use. However, the 2005 ruling shifted eminent domain from public use to public benefit, where the land under question had to be used for building an industrial plant for a pharmaceutical giant. This should be corrected.
[edit] Eminent Domain is sometimes pressuring
I've been living in my house for 17 years in my house but the government wants to take it for a library. I really enjoy books, but I also like my house! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt22deng (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] cleanup tag
I'm going to tag this article for cleanup. The issues that jump out at me are:
- legalistic jargon - esp. in intro - should be edited such that it's more accessible to laymen
- history section is too United States-focussed. The transfer and develpoment of this legal principle from ancient English law to modern nations needs to be expanded to include other common law countries.
- very few references relative to the quantity of text
- overlong introduction, needs to be divided into sections and integrated better with the rest of the article
- the issue of regulatory taking is not adequately described, though it is closely related to eminent domain
- recent ballot initiatives in various states, amending powers of eminent domain in response to the Kelo decision, are not descibed in enough detail
I'm sure there are other issues; I hope others will add their own concerns, and help me work on these issues! -Pete 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Saltpeter Case question...
I am doing a project for a History class and it would be great to know what the name of the English King involved in the Saltpeter Case was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.135.25.216 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Attempted Cleanup
I'm no lawyer, so I restricted myself to obvious jargon and grammar. Please try to keep legalese out of articles wherever possible, as it messes with the heads of we poor few who understand some English grammar. The page still needs someone with the background to look through it. And if you don't like the link I added - it is the exact subsection and is decidedly famous here in Australia - please just delete the link, don't revert me overall. --Callix 12:52, March 27 2007 (UTC)
