Search results

For decades, local governments have used the power of eminent domain to evict low-income residents across the United States. Reversing this trend of government-sanctioned displacement, the City of Richmond, California has developed an innovative use of eminent domain to keep residents in their homes and prevent foreclosure. By using the power of eminent domain to purchase underwater mortgages developed during the housing bubble at today's market value, Richmond could save residents thousands of dollars and allow them to stay in their homes. This approach has met with strong resistance from Wall Street, where these mortgages have become profitable investment vehicles. Richmond's success will be based on the City's ability to develop new partnerships with activists and investors outside the municipal boundaries. ; http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/120414/1/Norman_EminentDomain.pdf

Intro -- Eminent Domain -- Dedication -- Prologue -- Chapter 1 -- Chapter 2 -- Chapter 3 -- Chapter 4 -- Chapter 5 -- Chapter 6 -- Chapter 7 -- Chapter 8 -- Chapter 9 -- Chapter 10 -- Chapter 11 -- Chapter 12 -- Chapter 13 -- Chapter 14 -- Chapter 15 -- Chapter 16 -- Chapter 17 -- Chapter 18 -- Chapter 19 -- Chapter 20 -- Chapter 21 -- Chapter 22 -- Chapter 23 -- Chapter 24 -- Chapter 25 -- Chapter 26 -- Chapter 27 -- Chapter 28 -- Chapter 29 -- Chapter 30 -- Chapter 31 -- Chapter 32 -- Epilogue -- Copyright.

WI docs. no.: Leg.1:1977/28 ; Cover title. ; Bibliography: leaf 6. ; Mode of access: Internet.

"The taking of private property for development projects has caused controversy in many nations, where it has often been used to benefit powerful interests at the expense of the general public. This edited collection is the first to use a common framework to analyze the law and economics of eminent domain around the world. The authors show that seemingly disparate nations face a common set of problems in seeking to regulate the condemnation of private property by the state. They include the tendency to forcibly displace the poor and politically weak for the benefit of those with greater influence, disputes over compensation, and resort to condemnation in cases where it destroys more economic value than it creates. With contributions from leading scholars in the fields of property law and economics, the book offers a comparative perspective and considers a wide range of possible solutions to these problems"--

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. Environmentalism and Property Rights -- The Land-Use Battleground -- Environmentalism: The Battle over Who Should Control the Land -- The Eminent Domain Power: How Innocuous Is It? -- The Police Power Run Amuck -- 2. The Genesis and Development of the Eminent Domain and Police Powers -- The Sovereign's Power of Eminent Domain -- The Police Power: Its Early Life and Peculiar Development -- Zoning and Land Use: "What Can I Build and Where Can I Build It?" -- Conclusion -- 3. The Right to Private Property: Does it Exist? Where Does It Come From? Is Absolutism Defensible? -- The Problem -- Property Theories and Property Defenses -- Can a Natural Right to Property be Defended? -- 4. Conclusion: Resolving the Constitutional Muddle -- The State: Its Derivation and Limits -- Eminent Domain and Police Power: Ideal World -- Eminent Domain and Police Power: Real World -- Real World: Summation -- Index of Legal Cases -- General Index

An analysis of eminent domain law in the U. S., as well as the landmark Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London, requires us to question whether property rights as described in the Constitution are still protected today. The main issue resulting from the Kelo v. City of New London case is whether government seizing of land for private uses enters a grey constitutional area. These takings often leave land owners in the dust. If more courses of actions are made available to land owners can we return to following the constitution?

An analysis of eminent domain law in the U. S., as well as the landmark Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London, requires us to question whether property rights as described in the Constitution are still protected today. The main issue resulting from the Kelo v. City of New London case is whether government seizing of land for private uses enters a grey constitutional area. These takings often leave land owners in the dust. If more courses of actions are made available to land owners can we return to following the constitution?

In the light of Kelo v. City of New London's impact on eminent domain, two dimensions of natural resource development takings are explored: (1) how courts have used natural resource development takings as a benchmark for comparing Kelo-type economic development takings; & (2) the degree to which the public & legislative reaction to the Kelo decision has influenced natural resource development takings in the Interior West. Adapted from the source document.

This Article analyzes the relationship between private property and the government's power to expropriate it. When it comes to protecting private property from governmental expropriation, our Constitution is conflicted. On the one hand, the right to private property is a foundational principle that defines the American spirit, our history, and our culture. Yet, on the other hand, the Founders adopted the government's superior authority over private property, that is, eminent domain, for public purpose and with just compensation, via the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This "private property conundrum" requires us to explore the limits of eminent domain relative to a person's private property right in themselves, that is, their "persona." This Article advances the thesis that every person in America possesses a right to the attributes of themselves or "persona," which is protected against governmental exploitation. It develops that seminal, normative thesis through three tasks: (1) it presents a contemporary conflict between the private property rights of National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") athletes and state governments that operate NCAA schools; (2) it argues that eminent domain and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment should not apply to persona rights, particularly name, image, and likeness ("NIL"); and (3) it proposes a model code solution that society, policymakers, and government should adopt to prohibit the use of eminent domain to exploit NIL and other attributes of persona. Consequently, this Article concludes that States that operate NCAA member schools have wrongfully taken, and continue to wrongfully take, student athletes' right to their persona.