Dear Santa, All PLF wants for Christmas is…
4 hours ago
Owners' Counsel of America - a network of experienced eminent domain attorneys serving property owners nationwide and defending the constitutional right to own private property.
The Court’s decision in Kelo is alarming because, as Justice O’Connor accurately noted in her dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has ‘‘effectively . . . delete[d] the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment’’ and thereby ‘‘refuse[d] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution’’.Under the Court’s decision in Kelo, Justice O’Connor warns, ‘‘The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.’’.
In the United States, each State, as I said, has its own fundamental common law with respect to what is allowable for a public use. In NY, for example, where I am based, it is almost without limitation that you can take someone's property and turn it over to a well connected developer or something like that to build a shopping center- you can take someone's home and turn it over to and build a large mall shopping center. New York is at the forefront of this and it's also very difficult to stop a condemnation in New York.
The most pointed argument with respect to eminent domain in United States is taking private property to turn over to another property owner. It's not for a typical public use like a bridge, a library or a school or a highway; it's the taking of private property to turn over to a developer who is going to build a shopping mall or something like that- that is the issue that upsets most people.