1. Is taking property through eminent domain fair? No, because focusing a person out of his or her property isn’t fair like the quick take power. Especially, when they only give you just compensation and don’t really give you full value on your house. There should be balance between what the government can with a person’s property, for what they believe is for the greater public good. 2. Is current fair market value "just and equitable" eminent domain pricing for property owners that owe more than the property is worth? Why or why not? No because if the owner owes more than what there house is worth then they still have the cover the rest of the mortgage loan even when they do not own the property anymore. 3. Does your answer to the previous question depend upon whether the property is residential or commercial? Why or why not? Yes, because when your taking space from a commercial place it can cause them to lose money or business and the government will not cover the lose. 4. Should the Abounding Grace Church be treated differently than the Zanzibar Lounge based on the publically perceived difference in moral purpose of each establishment? I my opinion I do not think so, along as both places pays their taxes and abides by the laws then they should be treated equally. Because both places were thriving and it’s costing their employee’s to lose their job. Just because their means of making money are different, these businesses should be treated equal. 5. Should a "replacement cost" analysis that takes into account the owner's financial position be implemented? Yes, because from the case the church still owes the bank money on the property and they no longer have the property. 6. Should it matter if the owner's existing mortgage is recourse or non-recourse? Yes, because on a recourse loan the lender can come after there other assets or sue and for non-recourse the borrower can sell or the lender has to just walk away with the difference. 7. Assuming home prices bounce back to well above historical averages in the next decade, | should homeowners be compensated today for the lost opportunity for appreciation infuture years when their property is taken through eminent domain? No, because there property is no longer in there possession. It is unfortunate that they lost their property and not they can not capitalize on that opportunity. However, I do think that they government
room that's "mine." As my mother always says, "It's for the good of the family." But, no matter how much I feel deprived, I always know that I'll have it back in a few days. However, the results would be different if she applied the principal of "eminent domain." I would lose my room permanently, and it would be turned into a real guest room. I would not be a happy family member.
Because of this experience, I can empathize with the home owners affected by the recent 5:4 Supreme Court decision…
Legal Environment of Business
17 April 2012
Eminent domain refers to the government and state having power over all property within a state, usually the power to take property for public uses, such as a park or library. In the United States, under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the owner of any property is entitled to reasonable compensation, this meaning the fair market value of the property. The fair market value is the highest…
Eminent Domain: Public Use or Abuse?
The urban economy has become increasingly competitive. As a result, economic development projects have made priority on the agenda in many cities. Because today’s top issue in cities is jobs, politicians are using eminent domain powers to create jobs and businesses. Hulen describes eminent domain as the seizing of private property by the government without the consent of the owner. National and local governments are using the power of eminent domain to create…
“Just compensation” “Eminent Domain”
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Introducing Public Administration
Prof. Terrence Harris
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states. It went into effect on March 4, 1789. When…
formally accuse. Investigate. The police indicted john smith of black market arms dealing.
Double jeopardy- one cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Casey Anthony. The accused in the Casey Anthony was later found guilty but not arrested.
Eminent Domain- power to take personal property to…
* National football league was not a single entity.
* Because they did not share profits and loses.
* Days after the raiders announced they were leaving Oakland to go to LA the city of Oakland bought an eminent domain action to acquire the team.
* Went to trial in may of 1983 and the court entered judgment for the raiders
* On appeal it was remanded to the trial court, with directions to consider certain remaining objectives to plaintiff’s suit which had not previously been addressed…
TO: ABC Mining Company
DATE: April 14, 2012
RE: Tax consequences and other risk factors associated with mining operations
ABC Mining Company, Inc. is a publically traded, large domestic mining company with over 500 plants in the United States. ABC owns a tract of land in California upon which it has conducted a strip mining operation for coal. An unrelated party owns a tract of land adjacent to the tract of land in California, which is owned by ABC. This land is worth…
Commandments. They also have some of the same words, but they broke them down into different ways to give a different meaning or interpretation that may stray away from the original Ten Commandments.
City of Oakland, California vs. Oakland Raiders
Eminent domain is defined as the government’s power to take private property for public use. The owner of the property must be allowed by the government to make a case for the reason why they such be given the right to keep the property. If the government does…
The First Amendment’s Right of Religion The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Janda 458). The Establishment Clause prohibits laws establishing religion and the FreeExercise Clause prevents the government from interfering with the exercise of religion (458). The Supreme Court cases Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Employment Division V. Smith (1989) are two cases that are based on the…
to reverse the situation as the city had already decided based on eminent domain.
In Evicted! , David Shultz informs us that the government is granted the right to retrieve an individual’s land by any means necessary. This means that it is completely legal for a home to be demolished for the sake of creating a greater profit. The main right that a property owner has after their property has been retrieved by way of eminent domain is that he or she must be monetarily compensated (Shultz, 2009, p…