1) In listening to and reading the information on eminent domain, I find that there are reasons for the use of the eminent domain, that would not violate the Fifth Amendment taking clause, but there are cases in which it does. I think if the property seized is impoverish or blight and the use of it would make the area safer and more productive for the benefit of the public rather as in public use or public purpose it is a good thing. I can also see how public use and public purpose could go hand in hand and not either/or. If the property seized will bring jobs in or revenue in based on increase taxes, pay the property owner market value and make it a better place. However, in this case with Kelo Vs. New London, the property seized is not blight…show more content… In the example of Freddy’s bar, Mount Holly, and Philly’s Artist Studio the big corporations are the ones who are getting something for nothing. They are getting tax breaks and land virtually free by paying in some cases one third of its worth. That is clearly taking advantage of the public, and not helping the public. The government needs held to a higher standard when seizing property for private companies use. It needs to show how it will be a public benefit and be giving the property owners a clear benefit for the sale or takeover of their property. I do see a case where confiscating property would be appropriate as a slum or abandoned property that the owner refuses to fix up and make a decent place. This would be to the public’s benefit and all the owners of the properties around would get a benefit. It seems that the eminent domain section of the Fifth Amendment needs to be better defined and not so lenient in the “public use” definition. By making the Amendment and its definition more specific, it would stop the private property abuse but still allow for eminent domain when needed for the greater
