Misc. Ramblings

[Insert Disclaimer Here. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice nor an offer of such. The door is a jar.]

One of the core values of the US Constitution is the right of citizens "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," It is enumerated in Article IV of the Bill of Rights.

But, as with most if not all rights, it is limited by other rights. In this case, the next Article of the Bill of Rights says "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." [Emphasis added.]

The last part of Article V balances Article IV in that seizures, by the government, of private property can be legal if done for a public use and with just compensation. The exercise of such power is called eminent domain.

The key question in disputes between parties is usually what is a public use. Think about this hypothetical. A municipal government wants to buy several private properties so that a hotel, shopping mall, and office complex can be developed on them. This is part of a planned redevelopment effort with the intent of making the town more attractive to businesses and therefore generating more tax income. The city then condemns the land and pays the going rate for both the property and any homes on said properties. All of your neighbors agree to the offered prices and soon move away. For your part, you have lived in your home all your life and don't want to sell or move. The city goes to court to force you off your land and out of your home. Is this taking for a public purpose?

Expand, if you will, that hypothetical a little farther down the road. You are the owner of a hotel. You want to expand and create a much larger complex that would include not only a hotel, but an office building and shopping mall. But your neighbors are other hotel and small business owners and they do not wish to help you run them out of their businesses. So you go the the city government and get them to condemn the land and force the others to sell their businesses to you. Government has thus created a monopoly and the hotel owner can now raise rents to levels not possible when there was competition. Is this taking for a public purpose?

According to a ruling from the US Supreme Court today, the answer to both hypotheticals appears to be yes, they are. Previously, eminent domain was traditionally used to build public schools, public roads, or public parks. The key word being public. Now, eminent domain can be used for private purposes such as privately owned hotels, privately owned shopping malls, or privately owned office complexes.

I can't comment on these cases but it now appears government has an expansive right to seize your property for uses that lay, in my opinion, far from what what appears to be a public one.

Aloha!