Of course with private restrictions on
ownership, come about an even broader list of restrictions in the public
sphere. The four basic powers governments have over real property include
-Taxation
-Eminent domain
-Police power
-Escheat
A fascinating and many times unrealized power
the government possesses on our property is that of eminent domain. Under the power of eminent domain, the government
can acquire your property for public use, regardless if you are willing or
wanting to sell it. Just compensation is required by the government, but within
this lies some controversy. In the case Kelo v. City of New London, a number of
homes were torn down for the development of a large pharmaceutical giant to
take over the land. After nearly $80 million dollars of expenses, the project
was abandoned. This has caused many states to restrict cities from the taking
of private property for economic development. Here is a basic overview of the
case: http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=5848
Since then the “Private Property Rights
Protection Act of 2011” has been passed. In the bill economic development is
defined as “taking private property, without the consent of the owner, and
conveying or leasing such property from one private person or entity to another
private person or entity for commercial enterprise carried on for profit, or to
increase tax revenue, tax base, employment, or general economic health…”
The controversy continues and the
constitution is being reviewed still for proper interpretation. A recent
article was published concerning the controversy California is experiencing
with eminent domain.
The original purpose of eminent domain was to
make it easier on the government to perform their operations. Have we taken it
too far? What is the balance of government control and overall public security
and rights? I think the concept of just compensation needs to be further
interpreted to better protect the property owner’s interest.
