8.+Eminent+Domain

VIII.
 * Eminent Domain**

Eminent domain is an exercise of the power of government or quasi-government agencies (such as airport authorities, highway commissions, community development agencies, and utility companies) to take private property for public use. Sometimes these entities may propose to use their eminent domain authority to take public housing property. [|(http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/centers/sac/eminent/)]


 * 5th Amendment**

The Fifth Amendment states that no person will ever have to be accountable for a crime until they are charged by a Grand Jury, unless it has to do with the military in a time of war. The Fifth Amendment also says that no person will ever have to be tried twice for the same case or be convinced to testify against himself. At any time the accused can choose to not answer any questions. And no person can be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of the law.


 * Kelo v New London, Connecticut**

New London a city in Connecticut used eminent domain authority to seize private property and sell to private developers, with the excuse that it would increase tax revenues and create jobs. The property owners sued and argued the city violated the 5th amendment’s takings clause that said the government would not take private property for public use without just compensation.

The supreme court found that the fifth amendment did not mean literal public use, but that the land would be taken for public purpose, because the city did not take the land for a private group of individuals.


 * City of Long Beach (NJ) v. Gregory P. Brower**

The City of Long Branch tried to use eminent domain to forcibly take the homes of the Long Branch homeowners. In August 2008, a three judge panel of New Jersey reversed the 2006 decision of Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson which allowed Long Branch to use eminent domain to build condominiums where Long Branch homeowners lived. Afterwards, the city dropped all eminent domain actions, in accordance with other terms. The court continues today to enforce these terms and agreements. [|(http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=877&Itemid=165])


 * City of Mesa (AZ) v. Bailey**

Randy Bailey very nearly became a victim of eminent domain until the Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter came to his rescue. The City of Mesa, Arizona planned to take the brake shop through eminent domain, raze it, and transfer the land to a privately owned hardware store so that it could move to the more desirable location. To add insult to Bailey's injury, Mesa used tax revenue to pick up the tab for construction permit fees, title insurance fees and most impact fees and costs that would normally be incurred by the buyer. In other words, Bailey's own tax dollars were paying for the government's abuse of power to force the transfer of his land to another private business. Legally, eminent domain projects allow the government to take land only for a "public use," such as a post office. That means that Mesa's decision to take Randy's property only to hand it over to another private party for their use is not constitutional, on the federal or state level. That's why the Institute for Justice's Arizona chapter took on Bailey's case as its first stand on the issue of property rights in Arizona. On October 23, 2001, the Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter filed an answer to the eminent domain complaint and counterclaim on behalf of Randy Bailey in Maricopa County Superior Court asserting that Mesa was abusing its power of eminent domain because the Arizona Constitution absolutely prohibits the taking of private property for private use. This was the first in many battles IJ-AZ will wage to prevent local governments from stealing their citizens' homes and businesses in order to transfer them to private individuals. The trial court upheld the use of eminent domain, but enjoined the taking of Bailey's property pending appeal. On October 1, 2003, the Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously struck down the City of Mesa's use of eminent domain. "The constitutional requirement of 'public use' is only satisfied when the public benefits and characteristics of the intended use substantially predominate over the private nature of that use," wrote Judge John C. Gemmill. [|(http://www.ij.org/privateproperty/3450)]