Eminent domain

Eminent domain (United States), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (South Africa and Canada) in common law legal systems is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or rights in property, without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for public utilities, highways, and railroads.[citation needed] Some states require that the government body offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain.
The legal doctrine of eminent domain, like the doctrine of seizure of contraband, allows expropriation of property within the existing system of law. Otherwise, expropriation may imply either a criminal or a revolutionary act.
The term "condemnation" is used to describe the formal act of the exercise of the power of eminent domain to transfer title to the property from its private owner to the government. This use of the word should not be confused with its sense of a declaration that real property, generally a building, has become so dilapidated as to be legally unfit for human habitation due to its physical defects. This type of condemnation of buildings (on grounds of health and safety hazards or gross zoning violation) usually does not deprive the owners of the title to the property condemned but requires them to rectify the offending situation or have the government do it for the owner at the latter's expense.
Condemnation via eminent domain indicates the government is taking ownership of the property or a lesser interest in it, such as an easement. In most cases the only thing that remains to be decided when a condemnation action is filed is the amount of just compensation, although in some cases the right to take may be challenged by the property owner on the grounds that the attempted taking is not for a public use, or has not been authorized by the legislature, or because the condemnor has not followed the proper procedure required by law.
The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to real property. Governments may also condemn personal property, such as supplies for the military in wartime, franchises; this includes intangible property such as contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights.
[edit] Terminology

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
At the time the United States was created, it and the several states continued to use the British common law, including the principle of eminent domain. The term "eminent domain" was taken from the mid-19th century from the legal treatise, De Jure Belli et Pacis, written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625, who used the term dominium eminens (Latin for supreme lordship) and described 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 done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property."
Some U.S. states, including New York and Louisiana use the term appropriation as a synonym for the exercising of eminent domain powers.
The term compulsory purchase, also originating in the mid-19th century, is used primarily in England and Wales (see compulsory purchase order), and some other jurisdictions that follow the elements of English law. Originally, the power of eminent domain was assumed to arise from natural law as an inherent power of the sovereign.

[edit] Allodial versus feudal title
Allodial title is the title to land generally held in fee simple by an individual or group that is sovereign on that land. Thus, in English law, only the monarch holds allodial title. All others are tenants of the sovereign through their feudal vassalages. Sovereigns generally gain allodial title either by grant of another sovereign to such title, or through right of conquest.
In the United States and other democratic republics, the people are the sovereign and delegate the power to exercise sovereign powers to their representatives in government. As in English law, what private parties own is not the land itself, but an interest in the property, and it is that interest for which they are entitled to compensation if the government exercises its eminent domain power.

[edit] United States
In the United States, the power of governments to take private real or personal property predates the Constitution, being a part of the common law inherited from England. This power was limited by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, which reads, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". The Fifth Amendment did not create the national government's right to use the eminent domain power, it simply limited it to public use.[1]
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld the rights of states to make their own definitions of public use. For instance, in 1832 the Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to allow a mill owner to expand his dam and operations by flooding an upstream neighbor. The court opinion stated that a public use does not have to mean public occupation of the land; it can mean a public benefit.[2] In Clark vs. Nash (1905), the Supreme Court acknowledged that different parts of the country have unique circumstances and the definition of public use thus varied among states. It ruled a farmer could expand his right-of-way (here an irrigation ditch from a river) on another farmer's land (with the offered compensation), because that farmer was entitled to the "the flow of the waters of the said Fort Canyon Creek... and the uses of the said waters... [is] a public use." Here in recognizing the climate and geography of Utah, the Court indicated the farmer not adjacent to the river had as much right as the farmer who was, to access the waters.[3] However, until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, there was some debate if the Federal government and Supreme Court had any role in ensuring that States paid just compensation.[1]
An expansive interpretation of eminent domain was reaffirmed in Berman v. Parker (1954), in which the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed an effort by the District of Columbia to take and raze structures that were primarily--but not entirely--blighted, in order to transfer the sites to private redevelopers who would construct condos, private office buildings and a shopping center. The Supreme Court ruled against the owners of non-blighted properties within the area on the grounds that the project should be judged on its plans as a whole, not on a parcel by parcel basis. In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984), the Supreme Court approved eminent domain to break up a housing oligopoly.
The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed New London’s authority to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then sell the property to a private developer. This 5-4 decision received heavy press because the Court sided with the city in recognizing the public benefit of the new development. It also inspired a public outcry that eminent domain powers were too broad. This resulted in several states enacting or considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the state's own power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock(2004)), and Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney(2006)) have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

[edit] Bush Executive Order
On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[4] However, eminent domain is often exercised by local and state governments; the order may thus have little overall effect.

[edit] Examples
Controversy on the Delaware: A Look Upstream at the Tocks Island Dam Project
United States v. Carmack
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company 160 U.S. 668 (1896)
Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984)
Norwood, Ohio v. Horney
Kelo v. City of New London

[edit] Typo in the U.S. Constitution
See also: Errors in the United States Constitution#Comma or smudge?

[edit] Europe
In many European nations, the European Convention on Human Rights provides protection from appropriation of private property by the state. Article 8 of the Convention provides that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence" and prohibits interference with this right by the state, unless the interference is in accordance with law and necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, or protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This right is expanded by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, which states that "Every natural person or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions." Again, this is subject to exceptions where state deprivation of private possessions is in the public interest, is in accordance with law, and, in particular, to secure payment of taxes.

[edit] France
In France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen similarly mandates just and preliminary compensation before expropriation.

[edit] England and Wales
In England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that follow the principles of English law, the related term compulsory purchase is used. The landowner is compensated with a price agreed or stipulated by an appropriate person. The operative law is a patchwork of statutes and case law. The principal Acts are the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, the Land Compensation Act 1961, the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, the Land Compensation Act 1973, part IX of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

[edit] Australia
In Australia, section 51, subsection xxxi of the Constitution permits the federal government to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws." This has been construed not necessarily to mean just compensation as a just term might not of necessity be monetary or proprietary recompense, as was particularly notable in The Castle. However, it is for the court to determine what is just and it may be necessary to imply a need for compensation in the interests of justice, lest the law be invalidated (Andrews v Howell (1941) 65 CLR 255). The property is not restricted to real estate. The precedent established by the federal court (Smith v Harrison (1981) 135 CLR 280) extended the states' power to any form of physical property. The court ruled that animals under the federal Marsupial Protection Act (MPA) could be expropriated from private owners and reestablished in reservations.
For the purposes of section 51, subsection xxxi, money is not property which may be compulsorily acquired; the Commonwealth must also derive some benefit from the property acquired and not merely seek to extinguish the previous owner's title (Mutual Pools and Staff Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1992) 173 CLR 450). A statutory right to sue has been considered "property" under this section (Smith v ANL Ltd (2000) 176 ALR 449).
The term resumption is a reflection of the fact that all land was owned by the crown in 1788, and that the crown is resuming ownership.

[edit] Canada
In Canada expropriation is governed by federal or provincial statutes. Under these statutory regimes public authorities have the right to acquire private property for public purposes, so long as the acquisition is approved by the appropriate government body. Once property is taken, an owner is entitled to "be made whole" by compensation for: the market value of the expropriated property, injurious affection to the remainder of the property (if any), disturbance damages, business loss and special difficulty relocating. Owners can advance claims for compensation above that initially provided by the expropriating authority by bringing a claim before the court or an administrative body appointed by the governing legislation.

[edit] Other countries
Many countries recognize eminent domain to a much lesser extent than the English-speaking world or do not recognize it at all. Japan, for instance, has very weak eminent domain powers, as evidenced by the high-profile opposition to the expansion of Narita International Airport, and the disproportionate amounts of financial inducement given to residents on sites slated for redevelopment in return for their agreement to leave, one well-known recent case being that of Roppongi Hills.
There are other countries such as the People's Republic of China that practice eminent domain whenever it is convenient to make space for new communities and government structures. Singapore practices eminent domain under the Land Acquisitions Act which allows it to carry out its Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme for urban renewal. The Amendments to the Land Titles Act allowed property to be purchased for purposes of urban renewal against an owner sharing a collective title if the majority of the other owners wishes to sell and the minority did not. Thus, eminent domain often invokes concerns of majoritarianism.
Most recently (and infamously) in Zimbabwe, the government of Robert Mugabe seized a great deal of land and homes of mainly poor villagers thought to be political opponents of his regime.

Eminent domain 2008-07-09T21:14:00-07:00 Rating: 4.5 Diposkan Oleh: Merlyn Rosell