Note: Essay below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files will contain proper formattingExcerpt from 'Discussion and Results' chapter:
org. 2005). The decision significantly broadens the interpretation of what public officials can designate public use and calls into question to what extent private properties can be taken for "just compensation" .
The fact that urban renewal projects require significant public investment and tax dollars underscores the significant policy issues associated with eminent domain and private property transfer from one owner to another. In theory any proposed urban renewal or revitalization project could be construed as beneficial to the public at large however, the immediate economic benefits would flow to the private firms who are in receipt of the transfer, and "homes, small businesses, and other properties would be razed in favor of high-profile private developments" (Lehavi, A. & Licht, A. 2007). Invariably "this situation would leave landowners with minimal compensation based on the pre-project objective land values" (Lehavi, A. & Licht, A. 2007).
In addition to the ramifications of "public use" the other significant development concern is the possibility of gentrification of the proposed site. Gentrification is "defined as the transformation of neighborhoods from low value to high value. This change has the potential to cause displacement of long-time residents and businesses. Displacement happens when long-time or original neighborhood residents move from a gentrified area because of higher rents, mortgages, and property taxes" (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. N.D.). High valued investment projects which are financed by significant tax credits, as an example specially designated tax incremental (TIF districts) can produce an upper income area, while simultaneously forcing the poor and disadvantaged to relocate into other communities.
A final concern in the polemical between eminent domain and preservation of private property rights concerns the "just compensation" issue. Landowners are required under the constitution to receive "'just compensation' based on pre-project objective 'fair market value'" (Lehavi, A. & Licht, A. 2007). Fair market value based on the current assessed or appraised value of a property does not incorporate the future value of the proposed project, which would not be realized if for the eminent domain doctrine. As such "the government or third parties involved in the project may enjoy the entire incremental value created by the land assemblage" (Lehavi, A. & Licht, A. 2007). As the eminent domain policy…[continue]
"Land Assemblage Problem" (2011, March 16) Retrieved July 3, 2015, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/land-assemblage-problem-3667
"Land Assemblage Problem" 16 March 2011. Web.3 July. 2015. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/land-assemblage-problem-3667>
"Land Assemblage Problem", 16 March 2011, Accessed.3 July. 2015, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/land-assemblage-problem-3667