This paper examines eminent domain as a governmental power allowing the seizure of private property for public use without owner consent. It explores the relationship between eminent domain and government zoning, outlines the procedural steps through which federal and local governments exercise this power, and analyzes landmark cases such as Kelo v. City of New London. The paper also discusses how eminent domain is susceptible to abuse—particularly when used to benefit private developers—while noting legislative efforts, such as Nevada's Senate bill limiting mining industry seizure rights, that occasionally protect citizens' property rights.
According to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD, 2011), eminent domain is defined as "an exercise of the power of government or quasi-government agencies (such as airport authorities, highway commissions, community development agencies, and utility companies) to take private property for public use." The consent of the property owner is not required. Governments might, for instance, seize private property for the purpose of building roads and other public infrastructure or ensuring public safety.
In this sense, eminent domain is related to the process by which law enforcement may appropriate private property for the purposes of promoting public safety and welfare. For example, a police officer can legally—if temporarily—use private homes or cars for the purposes of law enforcement in a process that is not dissimilar from eminent domain.
Government zoning is a fundamentally different concept from eminent domain; however, eminent domain may be used in the process of government zoning. For example, the government might determine the need to build a new school in an area of dilapidated housing. Zoning goals will have established the need for the school, and the government uses eminent domain to achieve those zoning goals. Zoning might also affect the aesthetic or lifestyle objectives of urban planners.
"The Supreme Court has approved generally the widespread use of the power of eminent domain by federal and state governments in conjunction with private companies to facilitate urban renewal, destruction of slums, erection of low-cost housing in place of deteriorated housing, and the promotion of aesthetic values as well as economic ones" ("National Eminent Domain Power," n.d.).
The process by which the government proclaims eminent domain in the United States is relatively straightforward. At the federal level, HUD must consent to the taking (HUD, 2011). At the local level, the government or its representative agency contacts the owner of the property and offers to buy it. If the owner agrees to the initial price, then the government has successfully exercised its right to eminent domain. In many cases, the two parties negotiate the selling price with the aid of attorneys.
Private property owners frequently challenge the government by refusing to sell. In such cases, "the government must prove that it tried to negotiate the sale and that the takeover is for public use. If the government wins, an appraiser establishes fair market value and the property owner is paid and evicted" (Bryant, n.d.). In cases like Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al., the property owner refused to sell and the matter went to court. In most cases, the government succeeds in expropriating the land but is still required to offer market value compensation for the seizure.
"Documented abuses and legislative protections for citizens"
You’re 67% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.