Talk:Eminent domain

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eminent domain article.
Article policies
⚖
Law portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] us. not en.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

--66.109.216.124 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)'It is becoming increasingly obvious at Wiki that the vanity domain 'en' cannot be further from the truth. Also, it could only have been proposed by people in a nation who think 1) English is the same everywhere; and 2) 'we count the most'.

'Compulsory purchase' is the term that applies in the English speaking world, and even here Australia has another term.

Further down the line - and we are already further down that line, way too far down that line - the idiosyncrasies of 'US English' are going to become a burden, as 'US English' is not at all as 'UK English' neither as spoken, with word usage, or in writing, and becomes a major annoyance for English speaking (and reading) people elsewhere.

It is a further grievance because it reinforces the belief of peoples outside the US that people inside the US see the entire planet as belonging to them, belonging to their US, belonging to their culture, and using their curious variant of the English language. This attitude is often perceived as one of arrogance, and as such cannot avoid creating 'bad blood'.

That the majority of people on this planet are in fact at least bilingual from birth and have much broader cultural references only serves to make this issue more sensitive for the great majority of netizens who use Wikipedia now and in the future.


75.82.148.156 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC) very relevant...

Since this article is so heavily weighted towards the US and the US is the only jurdistiction to use this term would it not be best to spin off the rest of world off from this article and leave this article for compulsory purchase as it relates to the USA.KTo288 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the U.S. is not the only jurisdiction to use the term, and although other countries that inherited the English common law tradition have come to adopt other more or less synonymous terms in contemporary practice, you will still find the term in their old legal records.
As a U.S. citizen I can understand the perception some people from other English-speaking countries might have that articles are U.S.-centric, but as one who has often contributed edits that might be perceived that way, it was not intended to express arrogance, but only ignorance of the usages in other countries. It should not be attributed to arrogance but only to the fact that Americans tend to make more edits and make them first. If the result seems parochial to some, then they are invited to globalize the article by adding the usages in their own countries. While some terms might seem to be peculiar to the U.S. rather than general to the English language, most terms are common among English-speaking countries so that the differences do not justify separating the domains. Jon Roland 17:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it is not the U.S. that owns the world, but the multinational corporations that own us all, and those entities have mostly adopted English as their lingua franca. You can accuse of of ownership when we start sending you tax bills for defending your rights and liberties. Jon Roland 17:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Help put other country material

I would like to see the case law etc for Canada, UK and Austrailian the otter common law States. Bona Fides 14:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"In law, eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property"

Should this read: "In common law countries?"

Do authorities with civil law jurisprudence have the same concept?

Is "eminent domain" used at all in Britain? I'm British, have some interest in planning matters, and have never seen it used with reference to this country, only where (eg) the USA is being referred to.

Should there be a seperate entry for "condemn" for the meaning "the legal process whereby real property, generally a building, is deemed legally unfit for habitation due to its physical defects"?

ANSWERS YES, CIVIL LAW COUNTRIES ALSO HAVE THE CONCEPT OF EMINENT DOMAIN, EXCEPT THAT THEY CALL IT "EXPROPRIATION" OF ENTEIGNUNG IN GERMAN.

IN THE UNITED STATES THE WORD "CONDEMN' HAS TWO MEANINGS. ONE IS THE USE IN YOUR QUESTION. THE OTHER IS THE ACT OF EXPROPRIATION THROUGH THE USE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.186.64 (talk) 21:48, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Regime" ?

should it really be referred to Castro's "regime?"i worry that the 'R' word is too negatively charged, and violates NPOV. This is a small part of the artical, but i dont want to change it if i am wrong about the NPOV part. --Whiteknight 01:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the Dictionary definition of Regime, it seems to be a fairly neutral word. However, Connotations of the word in everyday speech may differ somewhat from the dictionary definition.--Wahooker 12:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

regime simply means controlling authority or dominant coercive authority. a regimen is an habitual rule. Regimes continue until they are changed just as habits do.

I can tell you that physicists use the term all the time without any worry about its connotations. e.g. "The response of the device in this regime is linear." It just means "range of operation", in much the same way as here it means "span of time". Strait 05:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case Law in US

There is of course Parker v. Berman and the infamous Michigan case of Poletown. They set the discussion of Midkiff and kelo in its place. These two cases show how expansive the state power to take is, i.e. how liberal a view of public use is. However, when the use is clearly private, like as a cable TV, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Teleprompter' that even using an inch of the outside of an apartment building is not allowed and against the 5th amd's takings clause. John wesley 17:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

IT'S BERMAN V. PARKER. THE POLETOWN CASE WAS OVERRULED BY THE MICHJIGAN SUPREME COURT IN WAYNE COUNTY V. HATHCOCK. THE TELEPROMPTER CASE IS AN INVERSE CONDEMNATION CASE. INVERSE CONDEMNATION DEALS WITH CASES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT DE FACTO TAKES PRIVATE PROPERTY BUT DOES NOT PAY FOR IT. IT'S CALLED "INVERSE" BECAUSE IN SUCH CASES IT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO SUES THE TAKER AND IS THE PLAINTIFF, THUS REVERSING THE ORDER OF PARTIES. IN EMINENT DOMAIN OR DIRECT CONDEMNATION CASES THE GOVERNMENT SUES THE OWNER (THE COINDEMNEE) AND ASKS THAT THE COURT FIX JUST COMPENSATION AND UPON PAYMENT BY THE PLAINTIFF-CONDEMNOR, IT ORDER CONDEMNATION (I.E. TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE PROPERTY TO THE PLAINTIFF-CONDEMNOR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.186.64 (talk) 21:58, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expropriation

Why does expropriation redirect here? Eminent domain is a specific legal regime - the broader concept of expropriation should not be housed here. Rd232 12:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree - FrancisTyers 22:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - "expropriation" is the civil law synonym for the American term "eminent domain." It is also used in Louisiana because of its historical French civil law influence.

[edit] New laws limiting eminent domain in U.S.

I don't have time right now to incorporate this into the article, there it is if anyone wants to tackle it before I get to it. This is about a backlash against government seizing private land for private development. RJII 19:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Getting What They Want

Believe it or not, in some cases, the land owner gets the amount of compensation the actually want! I interviewed a lawyer who has been practicing eminent domain law for the past 32 years. He explained that if a piece of property is needed, although not needed at that particular time, it cannot be condemned. In lay terms, they can't take the property and simply hold it. If they forsee a need for the property, like building overpasses across a major intersate, they must pay the owner whatever he or she wants. to quote the lawyer, who shall remain nameless, "If the property is worth five hundred thousand and they want a million, we pay a million." Great to hear that this happens at all, eh?

ANSWER TO PRECEDING COMMENT:

No, it doesn't happen. It's an "urban legend." As demonstrated time and again, property owners whose land is taken are undercompensated. The offers they get are often "lowballs," and when they go to court to get their full compenmsation, out of their recovery they have to pay theior lawyers, appraisers, engineers etc. So they never get the full amount of the court award.

It certainly isn't true in the United Kingdom, valuations for compulsory purchases are made independently by the Valuation Office Agency, and these valuations can be contested and appealed. DuncanHill 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, IN THE UK VALUE CAN BE TRIED IN COURT. IT IS TRIED IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL, A SPECIALIZED COURT THAT HEARS SUCH MATTERS. ITS JUDGMENTS ARE APPEALABLE DIRECTLY TO THE BRITISH COURT OF APPEAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.186.64 (talk) 22:06, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Clarification -- Frequently property owners are under-compensated from what they think their property is worth. Don't confuse this. Many instances in the States, the independent evaluation whether by the owner or the government body is always the middle ground between the owner's value and the appraised value. When owners sue, they gamble in order to gain more than what the middle ground would be. And consider that property exists in thousands if not millions of dollars, and they're literally fighting over small amounts of money compared to the actual value if they sold their home that day on the market. Not everyone lives in Beverly Hills. .:DavuMaya:. 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of this discussion ignored what the initial commenter actually said. The situation was not eminent domain, it is the situation where the state cannot justify eminent domain standards because there is no project, merely the idea that the property would be necessary were there ever to be a project. For instance, the government knows it will eventually have to build a new school and that parcel X would be a good place to put it. There are no actual plans to build it though, just the vague notion that it should go there. In that case, the government could not use eminent domain, and would be in the same position as any other buyer. The seller can ask for whatever price he wants. If it is too high, the government won't buy the property. There is a good economic reason for overpaying in a situation like this. If it waits, the government will have to go through the cost of eminent domain and may have to pay more if the property is developed by the time they get in position to use eminent domain power. -Rrius (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be a good section to have on its own to dispel some users such as one that re-added the Controversy section. It also ties into how ED is sometimes used as bargaining. See [1] Recently in my city we had a situation in which the County had to negotiate for a land purchase for a ballpark knowing that ED would not fly in this instance. However if we cite such examples, we must make sure a source stated that ED was considered but not used, otherwise it becomes our own OR. .:davumaya:. 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Bruce L. Benson pretty much demolished arguments that use the type of simplistic holdout dilemmas mentioned in that UConn reference. See http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=544 Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slight Addition

Added "June 2005" to the ruling date of Kelo vs New London, as the February 2005 arguement distinction is confusing.

[edit] Calder v Bull

This citation seems to me inappropriate. Chase's opinion at least appears focus on whether or not the CT law in question was ex post facto, and the question of eminent domain doesn't come up. Can the original contributor comment? Axamoto 17:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compulsory stock acquisition

It would be good to see some information here about compulsory stock acquisition, if anyone knows anything about this! Steved424 20:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'd be happy to draft something but where would it go? (I actually think it should be on a separate, disambiguated page) 203.45.42.178 09:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eminent domain in Muslim law?

this revision by 131.216.165.194, now reverted, added mention of Muslim law in 'Origins'. Anybody know if there is a genuine basis for this change, or was it merely a troll? Steved424 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do tenants, not owners, have rights in Eminent Domain cases? (Need info Penna.-specific)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hey everybody,

I'm a reporter with the Philadelphia City Paper and PlayPhilly.com. I'm writing a story about the misuse of eminent domain in the Market East neighborhood. I need some answers and/or guidance on a prickly issue.

My question: does the principle of just compensation apply only to owners, or does it also apply to non-owner tenants? I'd especially like to know what the law says in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia

Yes, tenants have a leasehold interest in the property and they are entitled to just compensation. The measure of their compensation is the so-called bonus value -- i.e., the amount by which the rent they pay under their lease is less than prevailing rents for comparable premises. You take the monthly bonus vakue and multiply it by the remaining lease term and then reduce it to its present value. If the lease has no bonus value (where it is the same as rents for comparable premises or is month-to-month) the tenant gets nothing. Alsoi, if the tenant has installed fixtures he may be entitled to the vaklue of those fixtures.

The situation: the Pennsylvania Convention Center will be expanding and in the process demolish the Gilbert Building, which is home to 30 artists and arts organizations. From a qualitative point of view, it is not a "blighted" neighborhood; the expansion also makes little economic sense.

This aside, the tenants of the building are alleging legal foul play on the part of the city's Redevelopment Authority (RDA). They say the RDA intends to purchase the property so it can expel them without just compensation.

If it purchases the property, it should be bound to the terms of prior lease agreements and can only refuse to renew each lease as it comes due. If the tenants are on a month to month rental, they may have less rights due to their short contract. That being said, the tenants only own the stuff in their rented space, they don't actually own the space other than a right to occupy it for a given term of their lease.

The grey area: reading up on the laws, I've found that the RDA may in fact be following eminent domain protocol. If they are providing an appraisal to the Gilbert Building's owner, and if he accepts it and then the agency purchases the property, this is normal procedure.

Yes. Eminent domain really only means "you have to sell to us , but we have to give you fair market value for your leasehold interest".

Again, any guidance on this issue would be greatly welcomed! --Christopher Schwartz

((TEXT DELETED PER WP:NOTGUIDE)) .:DavuMaya:. 22:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an attorney-at-law: Please seek professional legal advice. DuncanHill 19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] philosophy behind eminent domain

i think this article could be improved with some information on this topic (ie eminent domain and justice, ect.) just a suggestion; i don't know much about eminent domain, so i probably wouldnt be qualified. ZypheR 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'

Hi, someone vandalizes the introduction of this article... "the colon to poop"


[edit] Public benefit

It has been wrongly stated that current Supreme Court standing favors eminent domain for public use. However, the 2005 ruling shifted eminent domain from public use to public benefit, where the land under question had to be used for building an industrial plant for a pharmaceutical giant. This should be corrected.

Correction: The US Supreme Court's use of the term "public purpose" as synonymous with "public use" goes back to the early 20th century. See Clark v. Nash and Highland Boy Gold Mining Co. v. Strickley.

This is the summary [2]. I will expand the section to indicate why the Supreme Court favored the eminent domain for that case, the current text is not sufficient to describe the action. .:DavuMaya:. 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Eminent Domain Needs Updating

I agree with the correction that looking to the 1950s is too short sighted. In Clark v. Nash, 1905, the supreme court said it was ok to eminent domain a sliver of farmer joe's land to bring water to farmer tom's land. The court was clear in this case that they were not going to second guess state's definitions of what was a public use.

Also, most states allowed land to be taken from a private individual and given to a (railroad) corporation dating back to the 1820s.

Also in the 1830s the supreme court said in Boston v. Newman that you could eminent domain person x's land to make a damn to power a mill owned by another person y.

I think the supreme court's position has been consistent on this point. Perhaps state and local laws have changed, but federal rules have not.

I am going to amend the history section so it goes back pre-1950 unless anyone objects. Doshwa (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eminent Domain is sometimes pressuring

I've been living in my house for 17 years in my house but the government wants to take it for a library. I really enjoy books, but I also like my house! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt22deng (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

I sympathize with your situation, but this is not a public forum.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup tag 2007

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm going to tag this article for cleanup. The issues that jump out at me are:

  • legalistic jargon - esp. in intro - should be edited such that it's more accessible to laymen
  • history section is too United States-focussed. The transfer and develpoment of this legal principle from ancient English law to modern nations needs to be expanded to include other common law countries.
  • very few references relative to the quantity of text
  • overlong introduction, needs to be divided into sections and integrated better with the rest of the article
  • the issue of regulatory taking is not adequately described, though it is closely related to eminent domain
  • recent ballot initiatives in various states, amending powers of eminent domain in response to the Kelo decision, are not descibed in enough detail

I'm sure there are other issues; I hope others will add their own concerns, and help me work on these issues! -Pete 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Saltpeter Case question...

I am doing a project for a History class and it would be great to know what the name of the English King involved in the Saltpeter Case was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.135.25.216 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Attempted Cleanup

I'm no lawyer, so I restricted myself to obvious jargon and grammar. Please try to keep legalese out of articles wherever possible, as it messes with the heads of we poor few who understand some English grammar. The page still needs someone with the background to look through it. And if you don't like the link I added - it is the exact subsection and is decidedly famous here in Australia - please just delete the link, don't revert me overall. --Callix 12:52, March 27 2007 (UTC)


As I promised I edited the US history section. It had a significant anti-eminent domain bias as well as factual problems. Please tweak it further. Doshwa (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo caption

I removed the line that said "Chinese law does not have eminent domain" from the photo caption. It contradicts a statement later in the article and clearly China takes private property for public purposes. See 3 Gorges damn if you don't believe me. Doshwa (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the part differentiating between feodal and allodial title has nothing to do with emient domain which can be used by the government in either case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.19.90 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy over eminent domain

There are obvious reasons why there is a heated argument over these government rights. Perhaps, there should be a new section in this article explaining these disadvantages. --Nebula2357 (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was just about to start this section. ED is evil, IMO, and must be stopped. A controversy section in highly needed! ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Because you think ED is evil probably means you should step back and take a breather -- work on other articles and come back to this one. How will you achieve an objective point of view if you are out to destroy it? And WP discourages controversy sections they are to be integrated into the article's main points themselves. .:DavuMaya:. 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's okay for those who consider eminent domain evil to write about it here, as long as they cite sources. Those convinced of its evil are, after all, likely to be subject matter experts on its alleged evils; while those who favor eminent domain are more likely to be subject matter experts on its goodness. Thus, the efforts of these two groups ultimately can lead to a well-balanced, informative article. Where would Wikipedia be today if it weren't for our many hardworking POV pushers! Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Such content must be framed within the context of the article, not merely poised against one another. The weighted positions of BOTH must be carefully arranged into the article, not haphazardly thrown into new sections. .:davumaya:. 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm kind of an eventualist so my approach is often just to throw new information into an article even if it downgrades the style/outline a bit temporarily. Later I get around to moving it to a logical place. Maybe I need to become more of an immediatist, eh? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Header Tagging

The article and introduction especially is littered with NPOV failure. It sounds more like an anti-Eminent Domain article than ever. While I encourage more vernacular English terms, I'm not sure if it accurate represents what ED is about. Accurately it is "seizing domain without consent." But then the legal definition of what "seizure" is and all these words that sound scary, are not noted. .:DavuMaya:. 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm okay after a careful dissection of the page I actually find it's pretty fair and haven't run into any inconsistencies or insanities. But I'll warn that editors be wary, if you feel impassioned to speak AGAINST the topic then that is a sign 'to avoid editing. .:DavuMaya:. 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I respect editors in their need to tag the page with as many gratuitous problems they can choose out of the Template. Perhaps we have not clarified that many issues are still in debate and should probably boost this Talk page to steer new editors to see what has been looked at and how the page has evolved. Tagging the page and then not helping improve the article is borderline bad faith. As well, if one is going to tag and subsequently re-tag the page (the history log is full of this back and forth) then it would be honest to ask the editor to state exactly what they feel is wrong and why they did so. I feel this is very unconstructive and it may be editors are just simply unhappy with the idea of Eminent domain itself. Obviously we must take care to ensure NPOV, part of which would be focusing more on the technical side of eminent domain as law. The second part is to weigh its effects and actions, thats another boondoggle yet to take. .:davumaya:. 07:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

In reference to this diff, I think that it is appropriate to cover the controversial aspects of eminent domain's very existence, as it is important historically, theoretically, and from the point of view of modern day libertarianism, which still argues for allodial title. Is there a place in the WP:MOS that speaks against controversy sections? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Criticism#Evaluations in a "Criticism" section Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other. (similarly Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure). Your content is not disputed, but it must be framed within the entire context of the article topic. For example your Libertarian assertion is valid but it represents a minority viewpoint in the U.S. context and very recent on a historical timeline. Such you can see how controversy sections are not very useful, it doesn't tell the whole picture. I suggest you insert your content in the appropriate sections below, overtime we will organize them. Remember eminent domain as law exists on a global context. .:davumaya:. 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Concerns about eminent domain date back well before the present "libertarian" era, to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, when Thomas Jefferson argued for allodial title in A Summary View of the Rights of British America and the 5th Amendment was drafted; and to the Magna Carta; etc. I'm not sure at all that the majority of Americans are that keen on eminent domain; if anything, most probably view it as a necessary evil, and the Kelo decision was not very popular at all. In any event, you can just use Template:Criticism-section rather than completely excising it. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
So you want to re-insert your section and be slapped with a criticism template that states Controversy sections should be re-integrated back into other sections? How does this make sense. You should just insert your libertarian information into the History section. Your content has nothing to do with "controversy" (see Wiktionary), like any law or power of the govt, there are times when it is used and when it is not. .:davumaya:. 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that in removing the Controversy section, you put the content in another section. That's fine, as long as it's in there somewhere. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mean to come off as I opposed your content or oppose negative views, in fact there is indeed not enough talk about how ED has affected people in practice. I just want to avoid people coming along and getting worked up and deleting or tagging the page needlessly. .:davumaya:. 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo