General concept of eminent domain

Name: Course: Tutor: Date: General concept of Eminent Domain Eminent domain is the vested right on the government under which was vested on the government under the Fifth Amendment to subdue privately owned property for public utilization. The government could acquire privately owned land to build a school, expand an airport, and build a bridge or a road. Under this law, the government compensates the owner for the land and property in it. The market value is utilized in this and compensation is done in full. Special cases where the government undertakes this to a large number of people, it is upon itself to look for alternative means of livelihood of the people vacated (Schultz 13). In many cases, the government looks for land elsewhere and proposes the deal to the concerned parties. Mutual agreement is settled on, and if both parties are in unison, the process is implemented. Recently, there have been lingering questions on the pertinence of eminent domain and its authenticity in certain instances. In accordance to the law, the government is mandated to take up personal property if they can produce certifiable evidence it will of public service (Schultz 19). Numerous cases have been brought forward against the government in an attempt to control the government’s power to snatch private property. There has been a direct push to the government from many sources in pursuit to reform the eminent domain laws. The government has been using eminent domain to forcefully vacate people off their hard-owned land of which some have built very expensive houses, offices, ranches, hotels, malls and thriving businesses. This rises the eyebrows on how far can the government go, and how it should be done (MacBride 109). Which laws and regulations govern the process? How much should be taken from a person in the name of eminent domain? The civil society and human rights activists have tried to come out and speak out for the people. In fact, for a long time now, they have held demonstrations in the streets asking the government to put an end to what is seen as manipulation of the government in the public eye. Cases have been filled in courts all over the world trying to regulate the governments’ power on the subject matter (Schultz 87). The government in the recent past has over exercised the law. It has taken privately owned land through threats, force and negative persuasion of the people. High-ranking government officials have manipulated this law to suit their gain. With vested interests, they have manipulated state organs and offices and acquired privately owned land only to develop it to business ventures suiting selfish desires. A case in reference is the Chicago Immanence House that was owned by a private proprietor Johnston Williams (MacBride 65). Due to its good location it attracted many businesses venture all over and had since become a hub in Chicago. Later, Johnston Williams was served with a court eminent domain letter of notice to vacate the land. In two years, the land was sold to a government official who developed it into the initial state after demolition of Johnston’s building. It cannot go further than this. Eminent domain abuse has been a recurrent phenomenon in the recent days. Its hunger cannot be satisfied by the sweat of other sole proprietors and common people (MacBride 87). It is fundamentally wrong for the government to twist the constitution to take up land or property from one private owner handing it over to another just because the government thinks a person is going to utilize the property better. Everybody is agrees that the government can take up land for construction of a road or school, but it is ethically wrong and morally degrading to give it to a neighbor or a bigger personal enterprise for economic benefit. Old men who have labored for a big portion of their lives with the hope of leaving their properties to their sons have also fallen victim to the menace (Schultz 108). A case in time is that of Randy Baileys Brake Repair shop in the city of Mesa, Ariz. He was told to vacate a place he had called his for the last thirty years failure to which he was threatened to pay higher taxes. Business had been thriving exponentially but they were going to turn his business into dirt. In fact, the government had done the same on three cafeterias and four companies that once stood on a five-acre plot. In the same city, one of the prominent newspapers wanted to construct a new home for the company but the owner; Stratford Wallace did not consent to sell his land and property. They had tied to come up with an agreement with him, but he blatantly refused. The times then concerted the assistance of a major real estate developer and together tried to convince Wallace otherwise. They declared the block brightened to further wear out the otherwise stubborn Wallace. Wallace found himself between a rock and a hard place when the Supreme Court ruled that The New York Times headquarters would eliminate blight and as much as it was a private entity, it would benefit the public. With no appeal, Wallace and his family packed out with as much pain in them. Their neighbors sought for external assistance, but to no avail. Eminent domain thus is clearly being used in the name of public policy and evidently for the wrong purposes (Kratovil and Harrison 51). The constitution is clear on this issue. The government can take hold of privately owned properties as long as just compensation is awarded. However, in which terms and by which laws should the government interceded for a private corporation in the name of local or state development? In 2000, Mississippi’s determination to evict plot owners for the construction of a Nissan Truck Factory is a good example of how eminent domain is being abused. In fact, it is in another higher level where there is political gain in the game. The state came up with lucrative prices that even outplayed other interested parties in the same. It was pledging to build a public parking lot and also deliver better access to the road for the factory. The families that lay in a 30-acre piece of land were co-owned by three families at the Southern tip of the state. Ironically enough the state declared that it did not need the land for the establishment of the company. Later on, the governor came out strongly to advocate for the company’s interest, claiming that it would enhance economic growth for the region and act as a source of employment in the same region. Eventually, the families were evicted to the Eastern Horn of Mississippi and the ...