Eminent Domain: Legal Plunder Disguised as Market Trade

Specific objections to the expansion of governing power are met often with immediate dismissal. For example, when one says things such as "Turning over excess power to central governing authorities puts our freedoms and security at risk",  he is likely to be accused of committing the slippery slope fallacy. Surely, such fears are exaggerated and overblown, right? Wrong.

Enter: Eminent domain laws.

Constitutionally, eminent domain laws allow federal and local governments to seize private property and convert it for public use on the grounds that the private property is requisite for the "greater good of the community". Traditionally, this has meant that if a home, business, or neighborhood obstructs a government project related to public service (such as the construction of a road, airport, military base, pipeline, hospital, school, firehouse, or police station), said government reserves the right to force owners into private property buyouts.

Some defense of basic and limited eminent domain laws can be made: What happens when the federal government needs to construct and provide public services to citizens in accessible locations? Surely, it is inevitable that private property will sometimes interfere with vital government programs and services.

The problem is that there are little to no restrictions on the enforcement of eminent domain laws, and thus, use of eminent domain is not limited only to incidents of the provision and expansion of public services. Wild and absurd interpretation of eminent domain precedent has allowed courts to make obscure and unfounded rulings on the basis of "public progress" or "community good". If a judge decides that a local swimming pool is "more valuable" to the community than the home that your family has owned for 150 years, he can force you out of it and have it razed to the ground.

The application of eminent domain to establish government service centers is empirically the exception to the general rule. More often than not, eminent domain law is used to seize private property, force tenants and occupants off of it, and turn it over to corporations or private third parties who want to use the property to build and expand golf courses, casinos, parking lots and garages, lakes and reservoirs, shopping centers, apartment complexes, restaurants, gas stations, and hotels.

Permitting federal and local judiciaries to make sweeping determinations regarding what constitutes “public good” in the context of annexing private property opens the door for dangerous and unprecedented abuses.

There is no shortage of horrifying examples: A family forced off of their land so that a casino chain can open a tertiary location. An elderly couple compulsorily bought out of home so that a golf course could be constructed (a golf course, by the way, which was subsequently never built). A husband mandated to leave the hospital bedside of his dying wife in order to move his belongings and possessions out of their house which was being torn down against their will to make way for a shopping mall.

(This article contains just a few examples of eminent domain abuse. It is merely the tip of the iceberg, as such incidents are innumerable and more occur every day.)

What makes eminent domain all the more appalling and unethical is the fact that governments that coerce private property owners to sell their land and homes are only required by law to pay current market value. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States stipulates that federal seizure of private property must be accompanied by "just compensation", but there are no specifications or qualifications regarding what "just compensation" must actually include or entail.
Today, this means that governments determine the worth of your property at present market value and set a price which cannot be negotiated or refused. So you bought a home for $250,000 before the market crash of 2008? Too bad, you're getting $180,000 for it because that's what the government has determined it is worth after depreciation.

Imagine a market system wherein consumers required you, by use of force, to sell your products to them at a price that they had dictated. Imagine that this predetermined price was significantly lower than your overhead. Now imagine that these "products" are no products at all, but rather, your land, home, or store which you had no previous intention of ever selling.

That's what eminent domain is, and that's what eminent domain does.

For whatever reason, this behavior is justifiable to us when exercised by central and local governing authorities. This repulsive tactic would be untenable to us were it utilized by anyone other than these governments.

The American legal system has elected to let governments decide what is "good for the community" at the expense of its individual members.  Is it actually more important for my community to have a second golf course than it is for me to maintain my rights, my private property, and my home?  If so, why?  Who gets to make that decision?

And what about the obvious conflict of interests? Another casino, after all, means more taxes and government revenue, which may incentivize governments to seize my property for "collective benefit" and pawn it off for profit. This drastically increases the potential for collusion between companies and governments in order to increase both corporate revenue and tax income.  A system that allows for governments to forcibly obtain private property in the pursuit of capitalistic enterprise is not a free market at all.  At its best, it is corporate favoritism.  At its worst, it is crony capitalism.

Allowing governing bodies to make resolutions pertaining to "collective good" at the expense of private property rights actually does collective harm, because it sets a precedent of repeatedly violating those property rights.  We lose more in surrendering property rights than we gain in the "community good" of a new parking lot.

Summarily: When the central or local governments calculate that your private property is more valuable to the community at large than it is to you, they have the capacity and the authority to seize it from you without your consent, potentially at a price which is significantly lower than what you originally paid for it.

The radical, unacceptable abuse of eminent domain law is not uncommon. It is not rare. It happens hundreds of times a year. It is not freedom. It is an imposition of justice. It is gross manipulation of codified law and abuse of governing power.

It should be immediately modified and contained or else entirely abolished.

EDIT:

Here are some suggested reforms and modifications which could maintain eminent domain precedent within the context of the Fifth Amendment while vastly improving and restoring it to its original and intended purpose:

1. Explicitly eliminate any all all provisions for adjudications on the basis of “community good” (i.e. determinations based upon the prospect of increased local revenue and more aggregate taxpayer dollars). Private business ventures are not considered an appropriate application of eminent domain; only potential public services can be considered (e.g. emergency, education, healthcare, military). Private property may never be seized in order to turn it over to developers.

2. Remove eminent domain rulings from the hands of the judiciary. No single judge or court may make any such decision; instead, turn these decisions over to town or city councils on the local level and to grand jury-style panels on the federal level.

3. Councils and panels called upon to make decisions regarding eminent domain conflicts must fairly represent the potential victims of an eminent domain ruling and determine whether the project in question warrants the utilization of eminent domain. They must be composed of peers of the property, home, or business owners who have shared interests and backgrounds and can relate personally to the private property owners. Shared experience and similar concerns can guide a panel or council towards making the fairest decision on a case-by-case basis.