La Court Decisions Put Wrinkle in Eminent Domain
Dollars & Sense
As published in the Naperville Sun – March 13, 2007
Eminent domain is the law that allows the government to “condemn” your property and take it over for a public purpose. In the past, the public purpose was for a government center, a school, a road or something that would benefit the general public. Recently, there was a United States Supreme La Court Case of a municipality in Connecticut that condemned a property so that it could economically revitalize an area.
The owners of the property refused to sell their property to a developer. The city council for the municipality expected the new development to attract new jobs, generate tax revenue and build momentum to revitalize the city. The city condemned the property. The owners, who wanted to continue to live there, argued that the city would be taking the property for a private, not a public purpose and therefore, the city’s purpose was not legitimate. The city convinced the Supreme La Court that the redevelopment of the city, the added economic benefit of the new economic development, the additional tax revenue, were valid purposes under the law. As a result, the city successfully condemned the property and of course, had to pay the owner an amount equal to the fair market value of the property.
As a result of this case, many states, including Illinois, enacted new legislation to make the municipality’s use of eminent domain powers more fair to the existing property owners. The Act still allows the municipality to take property for public ownership and control as they do now for recognized public purposes, i.e. to widen roads, build schools, and perform other vital government functions.
The Act also provides that if property is taken by a government for private ownership or control, the government agency must show by clear and convincing evidence that the acquisition is (1) primarily for the benefit, use, or enjoyment of the public and (2) necessary. The onus is on the government agency to prove these facts. The type of takings that are allowed for this purpose are those for eliminating blight and takings for utilities, public housing, airports, libraries or museums, charter schools and landmarks. The property owners can file a motion to challenge the existence of blight factors within six months of the filing of the complaint to condemn.
Under the Act, the government authority must pay relocation costs to the property owner and any tenants. The government authority must also pay the fair market value of the property usually as of the date that they file their complaint. Appraisers and experts determine the value of the property. The Act also may force the government agency to pay attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs if the property owner has made an offer of settlement and the la court determines a compensation that is higher than the last written offer from the property owner.
Why is this change in the law relevant? After all, you rarely read about a government body taking someone’s property, although School District 204 is pursuing this course of action for their newest high school. Also in Aurora, which has been very active in redevelopment of its downtown area, the city has eminent domain powers at its disposal. As Naperville becomes more built out, the future may lie in these provisions. While you may not remember all of the facts listed in this article, remember that because of the change in the law, as a property owner, you have more power in the face of prospective condemnations that have a private purpose than you did before.
Tagged with: La Court • Municipality • Private Ownership • Public Purposes • Supreme Court Case
Filed under: Deluxe Attorney Articles
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Wow! That was fast! On the very same day that Dean Sheremet filed for divorce from LeAnn Rimes they agreed to a confidential divorce settlement, according to LA court records. Read more on their… [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
RT Alan Grayson: "This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case." (via
The most meaningful effect of the Griswold case was that it was the precursor to Roe v. Wade, which held that abortion was a constitutional right.
Griswold held that the State of Connecticut could not prohibit the sale of contraceptives because there is a Constitutional right of privacy that prevents states from outlawing the sale of contraceptives.It sounds significant, and you could say that Griswold made the sale of contraceptives legal when they were previously illegal. But you would be wrong. Connecticut's law hadn't been enforced for decades, and the plaintiffs bringing the action had to talk the police chief into threatening to arrest them, so that they could bring the case in the first place. In fact, Griswold had no effect upon the sale of contraceptives, since the only laws against their sale hadn't been enforced for years.
However, the right of privacy recognized in Griswold was the theoretical basis for the later case of Roe v. Wade, which held that abortion was protected by the right of privacy.
Plessy v. Ferguson
The Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson was a landmark case that upheld a Louisiana statute allowing for "equal but separate" facilities.
The Civil Rights Act of 1965, ended segregation of public facilities The
aww soo cute
People vs. Larry Flynt
Ericsson Vs. The United States ( I actually forgot the last name it started with an E and was about a soldier getting back pay while he was a hostage)
They are working to destroy the wall between church and state.
They are about as Christian as Jerry Falwell (rot in hell).
To be honest the best way is to talk it over with your obgyn and they should give you some insight on what you should do. You can also contact I believe the red cross and they can give you information.
A découvrir, le court métrage de Valérie Donzelli, avant La Reine des pommes : Il fait beau dans la plus belle vil…
good
No there isn't, even the poor people gotta give up there money!
Dude I know the band’s crossover….and yes I’ve listened some hardcore punk too.The best hardcore punk band is Hatebreed.They even said their new album is more of a crossover thing
The German municipality of Niederzimmern does not have the money to fix potholes. They are now selling the right to fix the road to anyone. In return, the owner of the fixed pothole can put on the road a text of her choice. (from today’s Volkskrant)
When the companies are healthy.
I do see what your are saying, but which is worse? Fraudulent law suits, or valid ones that can’t be heard because the product has been approved by the FDA? Of course, as you may have guessed by my youtube name, I do have a bit of a bias… then I also know the full story.
RT Moron,imbecile, and idiot were once psychological terms, but now are used by the public for other purposes. Not the term, but intent #tck
stay in school people!!…
CALL the court. Better yet VISIT the court. They WILL know the answer.
I do see what your are saying, but which is worse? Fraudulent law suits, or valid ones that can’t be heard because the product has been approved by the FDA? Of course, as you may have guessed by my youtube name, I do have a bit of a bias… then I also know the full story.
«[...] the best protection any group of persons have against bigotry is competition and several ownership of private property…»
Going to the seventh largest municipality in Canada tomorrow. (I had to google that, haha)
James A Tesno is a money hungry leech. Let’s wake up and think about the children instead of your wallet Tesno. You’re disgusting. CHILDREN FIRST, NOT FINANCIAL THIRST. Good shot at trying to make Paul look like a beast though, failure.
Oh my. No, it doesn't eschew prescriptiveness. Capitalism (that is, private property ownership) is statist.