Local, state, and federal government agencies have the power of eminent domain condemnation for the purpose of strengthening the public infrastructure. In other words, they have the power to take and use private property for public use. Such purposes can include the creation of highways, schools, public utilities, and/or to ensure public safety. However, some argue that eminent domain has become a tool used by government agencies to transfer private property from one owner to another.
The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment declares that the government can only take private property for public use and only if the government pays the private property owners just compensation. Citizens can resist the government’s power of eminent domain by showing one of two arguments:
The first argument can be made by demanding that the governmental agency seeking to take the property produce a resolution of necessity. The resolution is a document explaining why the property is needed for the completion of a public project. The explanation provided in the resolution can be tested in court.
The compensation offered by the government for taking private property only needs to be “just”. The Supreme Court has ruled that “just” only means “the market value of the property at the time of the compulsory taking”. However, it may still be wise to contest the amount offered, as government agencies will rarely offer the fair value of the property on the first attempt. Bartering with the agency can increase the amount offered. Be advised though, that if the case goes to court, there is a chance that the jury may decrease the compensation.
Strictly speaking, police damage or confiscation of property in the course of an investigation or pursuit of a criminal falls under the government’s police powers, not its power of eminent domain. Nevertheless, most states have policies requiring the compensation of third parties whose property was damaged, destroyed or taken due to police action.
In 2005, the Federal Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that it was “public use” for governments could take property from one private owner and give the property to another property owner. However, the decision provided to be immensely unpopular and many states have passed laws or constitutional amendments restricting the use of eminent domain. On the Federal level, President Bush issued an executive order in 2006 restricting the federal government’s eminent domain powers to public use only. The order still remains as of this update in 2012.
Throughout the United States, local governments, developers, and landowners have found alternatives to Eminent Domain. These alternatives include:
Hiring an experienced eminent domain lawyer is highly recommended for any of these kinds of transaction.
If you are facing the prospect of your land being taken by eminent domain, experienced eminent domain lawyers can advise you of the applicable laws in your area. It is likely that an alternative to eminent domain exists. Your lawyer can help you pursue those alternatives so you are justly compensated.
Last Modified: 12-08-2015 02:45 PM PSTLaw Library Disclaimer
We've helped more than 4 million clients find the right lawyer – for free. Present your case online in minutes. LegalMatch matches you to pre-screened lawyers in your city or county based on the specifics of your case. Within 24 hours experienced local lawyers review it and evaluate if you have a solid case. If so, attorneys respond with an offer to represent you that includes a full attorney profile with details on their fee structure, background, and ratings by other LegalMatch users so you can decide if they're the right lawyer for you.