Eminent Domain - Case Study Example

In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses with or with or without their consent to revitalize the business industry. What does this mean for home owners The outlook is not good. Firstly, it makes it abundantly clear that our homes are indeed not ours. The notion that we are compensated for the demolition is disingenuous at best. This was a decision replete with huge implications for a country with many zoning areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas.

These areas stand defenseless, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights. As a result, cities now have wide power to demolish residences for projects such as malls, arenas, hotels and other massive structures in order to generate tax revenue. Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials rather than federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. Try explaining that to the poor man who sits on the wrong side of the local official.

Stevens further ruled that "states are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened." Sounds generous, but whom is to decide what constitutes overly burdened How does a single citizen stop the arbitrary and capricious act of the local government Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the only rational justice stated in her dissent that this ruling was nothing more than well heeled people enjoying "disproportionate influence and power". Applying this decision to the activist justice, means that the justices have no power to make a fair and impartial decision - the very thing that they are elected to do!

Anyone can bring a temporary restraining order against the local city or town, but their burden is tremendous, and all that the city need do is demonstrate that the person seeking to keep their home is not overly burdened. What is the judicial threshold What constitutes "overly burdened" remains to be seen, one can only hope that there are activist judges out there who will make the burden a light one for the home owner. Further, perhaps the judge in his/her discretion will find that the home owner is overly burdened and thus stop an immediate taking.

However, we all know that the appellate process will ultimately rule in favor of the developer.