Emminent Domain 8

[PSE]

The recent US supreme court ruling regarding property seizure has significant implications.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

As an engineer, would you think it ethical to work on a private works "development" project where the original property owners have been displaced due to this ruling?

Regards,

 

[IRstuff]

In the meantime, other states and communities have already done the dirty deed. many times over.

Case in point, City of Brea, CA, proposed a downtown revitalization which involved razing the downtown area of existing homes and businesses to put up new homes and businesses. It's clearly arguable that the current state s probably "better" for the community as a whole.

The basic "greater good" argument presumably still holds sway, and in the cited case above, there will probably be a net benefit to the community as a whole.

The profit motive is still troubling and it's unclear whether public officials, who are often beholden to or otherwise beneficient from companies that profit from these developments, can remain true to their public trust.

Maybe we should lobby to license public officials ;-), e.g., PPOs (Professional Public Officials).

TTFN

 

[zdas04]

IRSTUFF,
They could get PDH's in "Plain and Fancy Mis-Direction" and "How to say less with more words"

David

 

[DRC1]

First of all it is certianly ethical to work on such a project. A 5-4 descion of the high court has made it the law of the land and there is no reason to brand such work as unethical. If you disagree with the policy and do not feel you should partciipate in such work, you are certianly entitled to your opinions and beliefs. Your employment is a matter between you and your employer. However, say that this work is unethical simply becuase you disagree with it. Somebody will work on it and the implication is that they are not an ethical person. This is not fair.

 

[rerig]

How about Arlington, TX.
Eminent Domain was sited to purchase homes from people who didn't want to move so Arlington could build "The Dallas Cowboys" a new stadium. The amount given for the property was not enough for the owners to by a home of equal value elsewhere. May a Double wide somewhere out in the country.
The City is actually taking receipt of the property, so eminent domain is really legal. Tax Payers will build the stadium and lease it. The Tax payers will break even, the past home oweners are homeless and eventually Jerry Jones will own the property. THAT is BS.

 

[MintJulep]

A 5-4 decesion of the high court has made it the law of the land

That is not how it works. The US Supreme Court does not (at least ideologically) create law. They determine if the interpretation and enforcement of laws written by local, state or federal legislative bodies are consistent with the "intent" of the US Constitution.

As a refresher:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; no shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The implementation of eminent domain relies upon state or local laws. In this case, the law implementing eminent domain allowed a liberal interpretation of "public use", and the Supreme Court ruled that neither the law as written nor the interpretation or execution were unconstitutional.

If you oppose this decision you should stop bickering about it on Internet forums and let your local lawmakers know that you oppose this use of eminent domain, and that you want the law in your municipality rewritten to clearly prohibit this use of eminent domain.

 

[BobPE]

Was reading on Yahoo News that there is a group seeking Eminent Domain against Justice Souter's home in NH. Seems that the property does not generate enough in taxes and would be better suited for a hotel....

He shoud be all for it....

LOL

Bob

 

[PSE]

MintJulep,

While I agree that the supreme court does not "create" laws, the weight of their decisions has a direct impact on current law. This decision can be used to to force other states to liberalize their emminent domain statutes a potential example of case law being able to supplant statutory law.

My personal values tell me that it is wrong for a municipal (or for that matter any) government to act as the agent for a private corporation and use emminent domain to secure property for that entity under the guise of greater public good. As a result my sense of ethics would prevent me from working on a project generated this way. Others have their own opinion and should feel free to express them accordingly.

For example (not to speak for the poster), CajunCenturion does not agree with the decision but believes it ethical to work on a project that came about through the use of this interpretation of emminent domain. Others have made comments on the decision but perhaps have not decided on how they would act.

Regards,

 

[CajunCenturion]

PSE - That is a fair assessment of my feeling. I think the decision is horrible, but given that the land has already been taken, I would prefer to see the land put to good use.

If I were the displaced home owner, I would be angry as hell, but would go ballistic if after taking my land, they let it go to waste and failed to produce the expected benefit.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[BobPE]

I understand that the person seeking eminent domain against Souter's NH property is serious and has the funding....It should get interesting....

It is a perversion of the law that frankly, I just don't understand what the justices were thinking....Maybe this approach from the common citizen will make them see the light of day....

Bob

 

[CajunCenturion]

Foe targets eminence's domain

Yes, it will be worth watching.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[IRstuff]

Fascinating that "conservatives," that are normally pro-business, would suddenly be anti-business.

Wonder if they even noticed that they've stepped over to the other side of the street.

TTFN

 

[stevenal]

IRstuff. Note that "liberals", normally defenders of minority rights and the working class are siding with business. The turn about is complete. Guess we better better not stray too far from the original ethics question, or the dreaded RF will descend. I will postpone my decision until I am invited to work on such a project.

 

[EddyC]

There are no liberals or conservatives, only people who want society to mirror themselves.

 

[GregLocock]

Might I promote a slightly unpopular thought.

When you buy land from the state it is subject to the laws of the state. That includes, as it always has, eminent domain.

So, the real problem is that when people buy land they delude themselves that it is now theirs for eternity, whereas it is more like a long term lease, and you can guess who has the final say.





Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[RCEJD]

I am a Registered Civil Engineer who just finished law school. This forum reminds me why I did.

Engineering is a great profession, although there are some good point raised here, their are gross interpretations of the New London case and the implications. I do not agree with with Steven's opinion, but the case is about the City developing a carefully formulated development plan, that involved the taking of parcels along a waterway for the purposes of promoting economic development which the court reasoned has a legitimate governmental purpose because this was a traditional and long accepted government function. Midkiff and other cases have long held that you can not take property thru ED for private use, however, there is a long series of cases that define public use ... The case presents no evidence that Pfizer was known at the time the City conducted the taking.

I do not like or agree with the case, and do not agree with the reasoning. Understand the case clearly points out that the States can statutorily limit the takings, i.e. California requires the area to be blighted, etc.

Engineers are very intelligent and analytical but why is it the profession has a way of sitting back and arguing about issues they do not bother to fully understand ...

The case is worth reading ... and if you struggle with some of the language and phrase applications consult with a a site like

http://www.findlaw.com

for assistance.

Some great comments above, especially about the dissents filed.

 

[patdaly]

Greg, that would be the case if the land were owned by the state, however it is not in this country.

 

[GregLocock]

Hmm, Ok, who do you buy the land from? And to shortcircuit the next question, do they (and can they) give you total posession?



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[CajunCenturion]

You buy the land from the previous owner. I think you're just playing with semantics. The private citizen does own the land, but via eminent domain, or compulsory purchase in the UK, the government can force you to sell it to the government for a reasonable price.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[ewh]

If you want to actually own the land (with the huge exception of eminent domain), you have to also own the mineral rights (or someone who does can start digging in your back yard).

 

[MJR2]

We don't really own anything, that is anything the government taxes. If we truely owned it then we could stop paying the property taxes on it and the government would do nothing. But what happens is your property is taken and sold to someone. All the government worries about is enough to cover the back taxes. Taxes are just another form of rent.