Question

Historically, the exercise of eminent domain has been limited to the taking of private lands for public works projects---roads, schools, water treatment projects, etc. Within the past couple of years in the Northeast, a city took (via its power of eminent domain) private land to be used for private commercial purposes as a means to increase the municipality's tax base (i.e., taking family homes for the construction of a Wal-Mart, although this was not exactly the case in this instance). The US Supreme Court upheld the city's action reasoning that the State had not limited a municipality's power of eminent domain. Is the use of eminent domain for the purpose of taking private lands for commercial development a justifiable use of such power? What are the pros and cons?

Answer 1

The government can take private property for 'public use' .but government have to pay the 'compensation'.Even if the owner does not want to sell his property the government can use its power of eminent domain it is known as "condemnation".in the united states 'eminent domain' refers to the power of the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring just compensation to be given to the original owner.

so the 'eminent domain' refers to the power of the government to take private property and change in to public use.Eminent domain takings are exempt from the requirements of section 18 of the U S housing act of 1937 and 24 CFR 970.This power is subjected to certain constitutional limits such as 'The property acquired must be taken for public use.The government must pay "just compensation"for the property.No person must be deprived of his property without due process of law.

After this process the government makes an offer , you will have the oportunity to accept or reject. If you reject the government will file an action in court to catch your property through eminent domain .Then court scedules an order of taking.According to constitutional rights private propert is not governmen owned.Restrictions on individuals free speech rights on private property do not include state action.