Power Of Eminent Domain Research Articles

Constitutional Law. Eminent Domain. Public Use. Legislative Grant of Eminent Domain Power without Restriction on Future Use of Condemned Property Violates State Constitution

Constitutional Law. Eminent Domain. Public Use. Legislative Grant of Eminent Domain Power without Restriction on Future Use of Condemned Property Violates State Constitution

Purely Economic Justifications Sufficient to Permit Exercise of Federal Eminent Domain Power: United States v. Certain Parcels of Land

Purely Economic Justifications Sufficient to Permit Exercise of Federal Eminent Domain Power: United States v. Certain Parcels of Land

State Constitutional Limitations on the Power of Eminent Domain

State Constitutional Limitations on the Power of Eminent Domain

Land Values and Parks in Urban Fringe Areas

Y intent here is to comment on three or four things which I find of lMv some concern to the problems of the urban fringe. The first is to note something of the nature of the urban land market, particularly a basic role of market forces in determining land uses or lack of use. Following this is a related comment on the claim of agricultural production on resources in such areas, and a suggestion that there may be some social values associated with land uses which are important, but which are imperfectly reflected in the market. The last point concerns values for some such nonmarket uses of land, which may be useful in the allocation mechanisms in urban areas. There is considerable unhappiness with the present ragged nature of urban development. While documentation is poor, there are to be sure a number of well-recognized problems and costs associated with such expansion. The usual list includes wasted land, high cost and insufficient public services, high transportation costs, uneconomic rates of obsolescence, and others-created or aggravated by what has come to be the usual rapid and sprawling nature of urban growth. This uneven, discontinuous, hit-or-miss character of the growth is often cited as the chief deficiency of the urban structure. This is not to suggest that scatter is all bad; it may offer some offsetting advantages in certain cases.1 However, it seems that the problems related to this type of development are formidable, both in terms of social costs of uneconomic growth and in difficulty of dealing effectively with it. An examination of some aspects of land values as they relate or contribute to this pattern of urban growth is of some interest of itself, but further it is germane to other problems of land use in fringe areas. Given the process of urban growth, the scattered pattern of development or sprawl is just about what can be expected to evolve. Indeed, economists should be surprised if development did not proceed in this manner. And we might, therefore, become more aware of the effects of economic forces in the design of programs and policies dealing with the problems and the opportunities in the spread of urban areas. We have a number of devices such as zoning, public investments and loans, taxation, the power of eminent domain, and the public purchase of easements which have surely had an impact on the shape of expansion.

Current Problems Affecting Costs of Condemnation

Urban blight is neither a problem of recent origin nor one which is confined tothe United States. With very few exceptions (notably Billy Penn's greene country town of Philadelphia), our cities developed uncontrolled and untrammeled by plan. Especially was this true during the nineteenth century, when cities burgeoned to accommodate and house the expanding economy wrought by the Industrial Revolution. The expansion carried within it the seeds of the twentieth century physical deterioration of our urban centers. As the industrial complex grew to meet the war demands of the 1940's and the frustrated consumer needs of the 1950's, blight began to threaten the very existence of our cities. However, it is not true, as some believe, that society stood idly by while this urban cancer developed. Society's initial attempts to eradicate urban blight were, indeed, as old as its very existence. The common law of public and private nuisances has been and continues to be antipathetic to deteriorating land usage. Of more recent origin, zoning control, building codes, and federal public housing projects aimed at this target. Nevertheless, these piecemeal attempts proved futile in and of themselves to provide an effective solution. The comprehensive power of government to renew, rehabilitate, and redevelop entire geographical areas within its jurisdiction-complementing effective programs of zoning regulation, building code enforcement, slum clearance, and. public housing-was exercised to restore our cities and to prevent further blight. This, then, is the sum of today's tools for effective urban renewal. Necessarily, comprehensive urban renewal has brought to the fore many new problems both within and without the compass of law. However, some problems are neither new nor peculiar to it alone. Rather, they are encountered at all levels of government and whether or not the concern is urban renewal. One of the latter, the cost attendant to the exercise of the power of eminent domain, is the general subject of this section. Here, the concern is not only how much government will be required to pay when it takes land or property by its sovereign right or pursuant to constitutional or legislative grant, but also the indirect costs that are levied upon government when it operates through traditional condemnation procedures. And it is of relatively minor significance whether the purpose of the taking be for a highway, slum clearance, public housing, industrial development, airport construction, or any other type of project. The question of cost is ever present.

Constitutional Law: Public Use Requirement and the Power of Eminent Domain

Constitutional Law: Public Use Requirement and the Power of Eminent Domain

Large Scale Developments and One House Zoning Controls

All the literature concerning the development of the initial zoning ordinances and most of the literature in the two decades after the adoption of the first large scale zoning resolution in New York City' in I9I6 is permeated with the concept of basic construction on relatively small There is no reference to blocks, super-blocks or other nomenclature designating larger areas in any of the legislation or reports until quite recently. Even as of this date, the New York City Zoning Resolution defines the depth of lot, and the rear of lot. The definition given to lot is a parcel or plot of ground which is or may be occupied by building and accessory buildings including the open spaces required by this resolution. By its own definition the resolution, by limiting the area of lot to that occupied by building, eliminates from most of the resolution any areas or parcels of land which contain more than one building and its accessory structures. In actuality, this had been no great hardship. The general practice of construction was, until the middle Nineteen Thirties, almost entirely in the hands of private developers. Without the power of eminent domain, the acquisition of large areas was limited generally to outlying areas of communities where restrictions, if any, were of minimal sort. Subdivision of the larger areas into small individual lots was the rule. The end result was that construction and development while done on large scale and over large areas were, in so far as law was concerned, individual development of individual lots. Traces of such subdivision, much of it premature, can still be found in such areas of urban centers which were not engulfed in the post-war building boom. The exceptions to this practice of subdividing into individual lots were almost exclusively devoted to large industrial developments which almost invariably were constructed in the more outlying areas. Similarly, the few large residential developments which were planned as unit also were out of the urban core so that they had the same latitude in so far as zoning restrictions were concerned as the non-residential uses. The concepts of large scale developments, except as noted later, did not reach point of general acceptance until the past two decades. The reasons are many

Eminent Domain and the Requisition of Property During Emergencies

OLITICAL SCIENTISTS have long been concerned with the problem of adjusting liberty and authority. Many are agreed that the operation of a democratic system of government can be well understood only when continually viewed in this context. Students of government recognize that the task of maintaining a balance between governmental power and the citizens' freedom is never really completed, since new conditions constantly create the need for striking a new balance. The most that we can hope for is the maintenance of some semblance of an equilibrium which meets the needs of a given time. In recent years it has been difficult indeed to balance the claims of individual rights and governmental necessity, largely because of the serious economic depression and the emergency conditions created by World War II and the fighting in Korea. Economic and military mobilization which has been justified in terms of preservation of the nation clashes at many points with the interests of individuals and of groups. Concern over this fundamental matter is evidenced by the tremendous volume of literature now appearing on such subjects as espionage, loyalty programs, communism, the extent of economic controls, the size of the military establishment, and academic freedom. It is well known that during periods of peace as well as of emergency it may be necessary for the government to take private property for public use or to restrict the individual's freedom to deal with his property. In such situations the clash between the individual and his government is dramatically defined in bold relief. However, with the exception of references to this subject in discussions of the Steel Seizure Case, very little attention has been directed by either political scientists or legal scholars toward the evaluation of current developments in eminent domain and the requisition of property during emergencies. And although the Steel Seizure Case continues to be one of the most widely discussed cases in recent years, the comments are directed principally toward the scope of the President's constitutional powers rather than toward the subject of eminent domain. It is the purpose of this essay to examine the topic of eminent domain, with special reference to the more recent developments. Some material relating to the origin and evolution of the power of eminent domain has been included, since it is felt that greater insight into the present-day practical and theoretical problems will be thus afforded.

Federal Eminent Domain Power in the Development of Water Projects

Federal Eminent Domain Power in the Development of Water Projects

Use of the Power of Eminent Domain in Slum Reclamation

Use of the Power of Eminent Domain in Slum Reclamation

States. Relation to Federal Government. Federal Power of Eminent Domain over State Property Devoted to a Public Use

States. Relation to Federal Government. Federal Power of Eminent Domain over State Property Devoted to a Public Use

Property Which Cannot Be Reached by the Power of Eminent Domain for a Public Use or Purpose

Property Which Cannot Be Reached by the Power of Eminent Domain for a Public Use or Purpose

Property Which Cannot Be Reached by the Power of Eminent Domain for a Public Use or Purpose

Property Which Cannot Be Reached by the Power of Eminent Domain for a Public Use or Purpose

Zoning in minnesota; eminent domain vs. police power

AbstractThe development of zoning law in Minnesota is a cross section of the history of zoning in the United States

Constitutional Law: Limitation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Eminent Domain Power of the States

Constitutional Law: Limitation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Eminent Domain Power of the States

Extent of the City's Right, under the Power of Eminent Domain, to Exemption from Liability for Consequential Damages under the Rule of Damnum Absque Injuria

Extent of the City's Right, under the Power of Eminent Domain, to Exemption from Liability for Consequential Damages under the Rule of Damnum Absque Injuria

The Right and Power of Eminent Domain in the National Government

The Right and Power of Eminent Domain in the National Government