When the Fifth Amendment was passed in the United States, part of its function was to give the government the power of eminent domain. The power of allows them to take an individual’s private property in return for “just compensation” for “public use” with the intent to better off a community. This could mean that a plot of land could be seized by the government with plans to become a road or a canal. In those cases, the government would be turning a private plot of land into a “public use” in which everyone would benefit from. Interestingly enough though, in the past some important cases have made people question whether or not the government should have that power for many reasons. Firstly, the group that usually ends up being a target of
…show more content…
The best example was the Kelo v. City of New London case. The city promoting the new plans for New London was benefit the city economically because it would bring “coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts.” Although this would bring in big tax revenues for the city and would attract many people, this would not be for the “public use” of the people that owned the properties because a good portion of them would have been bought out in order to contract everything. This would not be characterized as a use but more as a purpose that is not really …show more content…
The reason for that would that the relationship between a buyer and a seller is so complicated that how could they try to imitate that in order to either be efficient or just so that there is a win somewhere. Additionally, when it comes to justly compensating a proprietor, most of the time they do not understand or try to understand the value of the property at hand so the the exchange becomes unfair.
In conclusion, the government should not have the power to transfer private property to another private person because this leaves room to exploit those with low socioeconomic statuses, the ambiguity of “public use” allows them to take advantage of proprietors, and lastly government trying to replicate a buyer and seller relationship is a very complicated endeavor and may not always
The best example was the Kelo v. City of New London case. The city promoting the new plans for New London was benefit the city economically because it would bring “coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts.” Although this would bring in big tax revenues for the city and would attract many people, this would not be for the “public use” of the people that owned the properties because a good portion of them would have been bought out in order to contract everything. This would not be characterized as a use but more as a purpose that is not really …show more content…
The reason for that would that the relationship between a buyer and a seller is so complicated that how could they try to imitate that in order to either be efficient or just so that there is a win somewhere. Additionally, when it comes to justly compensating a proprietor, most of the time they do not understand or try to understand the value of the property at hand so the the exchange becomes unfair.
In conclusion, the government should not have the power to transfer private property to another private person because this leaves room to exploit those with low socioeconomic statuses, the ambiguity of “public use” allows them to take advantage of proprietors, and lastly government trying to replicate a buyer and seller relationship is a very complicated endeavor and may not always