Transmission Lines Easements and Personal Property - Research Paper Example

Download file to see previous pages As early as in 1625, Hugo Grotius has defined eminent domain as “The property under question is under the eminent domain of the government or state so that the government or anybody who functions for such a state may employ or even destroy or alienate such property, not only in the event of an extreme situation but also for the needs of public purpose or utility, to which ends those who have made civil society must have presumed to have meant that private purpose or ends should give away. However, it is to be noted that the government or state must be liable to make good the loss to the owner’s of the property which has been taken by the government.” Both federal and state governments have the privilege to take away the private property for public use with payment of just compensation to affected landowners. The Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution sets the tone for these seizures, and this power is widely known as eminent domain. In the historical decision in Kelo v. City of New London , U.S Supreme Court held that seizing the private property of land owners for economic development was entitled as a public use within the context of the Fifth Amendment. The above decision by U.S government has enlarged the both the federal and state government’s authority of eminent domain to unmatched areas. In Berman v Parker, in 1954, the U.S Supreme Court decided unanimously that the Fifth Amendment authorized governments to seize the private properties not for public use but for the public purpose. (scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com). U.S Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London1, that the employment of eminent domain to convey rights of a land from one private owner to another one for the furtherance of the economic development. The appeal to U.S Supreme Court happened from the fact of censure by New London, Connecticut of privately owned real estate so that it could be employed as part of a widespread redevelopment scheme. In a 5-4 decision, U.S Supreme Court held that general advantages a community savored from economic development qualified such redevelopment schemes as an allowable “ public usage” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court verdict in Kelo was widely condemned by American general public and the politicians. American public is of the view that decision in Kelo is a gross infringement of property rights. They also allege that the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment was against general public’s interest as it would be beneficial to giant business houses at the loss of local communities and individual land owners. Further, some critics allege that Kelo decision has removed the constitution protection offered by Federal government to individual property rights and placed the issue back to the state governments to fix on if any protection remains on any state-level. In the above case , the Supreme Court deliberated whether the “ public use “ requirement of the Fifth Amendment is satisfied in city’s decision to attach the private properties exclusively for the purpose of economic development. The City of New London, Connecticut wished to enlarge for the stated objectives of “revitalizing a distressed city by economically including its waterfront and downtown areas by taking over Kelo, which involved 90 acres of land owned by private owners. As per City, the development would foster in excess of 1000 jobs and an increase in taxes and other income. From the willing sellers, the City ...Download file to see next pagesRead More