Jump to content

Talk:Eminent domain/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Eminant domain and civil law

"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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPiper (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 December 2004

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.111.253 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 February 2005

"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 don't 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.154.83 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 July 2005
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)

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)

  • 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.174.87 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 June 2007

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)

Slight Addition

Added "June 2005" to the ruling date of Kelo vs New London, as the February 2005 arguement distinction is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.130.22.24 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 5 December 2005

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)

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)

Condemnation

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"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnCub (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 January 2006

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 • contribs) 21:48, 25 August 2007

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)

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 • contribs) 21:58, 25 August 2007

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

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

Again, any guidance on this issue would be greatly welcomed! --Christopher Schwartz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.53.127 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 June 2006

  1. Given that an owner in fee-simple is ostensibly a tenant who pays rent in the form of property tax, to the allodial title holder (the state or its county and municipal subsidiaries), eminent domain should theoretically apply to any level of tenancy, including people who rent from the fee-simple title holder. If a renter has a contract that is terminated early without just cause (because the fee-simple owner was served with eminent domain proceedings), they are suffering a taking and should be compensated, although I'm not sure to what degree this is supported in law.
  2. 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.
  3. Yes. Eminent domain really only means "you have to sell to us because ultimately we are the real owners of the land, but we have to give you fair market value for it". Eminent domain cannot legally be used to muscle owners to accept lower prices, though this is often the case in states with strong eminent domain powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.173.98.243 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2006
((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)
1. 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.
3. 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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.176.121 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 July 2008

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)

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)

us. not en.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.111.45 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 26 October 2006

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)

Vandelism

Hi, someone vandalized the introduction of this article... "the colon to poop" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.70.11 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 26 October 2006

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.201.60 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 October 2006

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.174.87 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 23 June 2007
This is the summary [1]. 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)

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)

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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt22deng (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 January 2007

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

cleanup tag - 2007

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.135.25.216 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 14 March 2007

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eminent_domain/Archive_1&oldid=1136698160"