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,

 

[MintJulep]

How not to "reverse" this ruling.

Our steadfast representatives in Washington are apparently at least observant enough to notice that the populous in general is not very fond of this decision.

I don't think this is the right way to fix the problem created by the court, but at least is might in-turn spur some action at the state and local levels.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161279,00.html

 

[CajunCenturion]

Personally, I think the action being taken in the best available option to the federal government.

The ruling cannot be reversed, except by the Supreme Court itself, and that won't happen unless a similar case comes before it, and the Court agrees to hear the case. It also stand to reason that you'd have to have a different makeup of Justices as well, and Justice O'Connor was a dissenter on this issue, as was the next likely retiree, Justice Renquist.

So what would you propose?

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

 

[MintJulep]

ED has historically been executed at the State or municipal level making it a "states rights" issue. However, one could argue that the clause

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof.

from Part 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution should be interpreted to mean that ED should be controlled at the Federal level, as it is discussed in the fifth ammendment. That would entitle Congress to enact legislation preventing state or local governments from using ED to transfer ownership from one private party to another.

This would of course be messy.

Alternately, the Constitution could be ammended. This is probably the best idealogical solution, although it has been a while since we have actually done this. The mood and time might be right for it however. I haven't met anyone who agrees with the court's decision on this.

 

[IRstuff]

Nope, powers that are not specifically granted by the Constitution are reserved for the States and the people:

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



TTFN

 

[CajunCenturion]

A Constitutional Amendment is an extremely difficut process, as it should be.

==> The mood and time might be right for it however.
Yes, for now, but will the mood last. The reason the amendment process is so involved, deliberate, and drawn out is to prevent emotional responses to drive the amendment process. Similar to others, I am angry over this decision, just as is almost everyone I know. However, even though that anger may be the impetus to call for an Amendment, it is not the right frame of mind for the process.

Further, the issue, at least from perspective, is not eminent domain per se. The issue is the interpretation of 'public use'. I think it would be a mistake to try to define 'public use' in Constitutional terms.

I also think it would be impractical to restrict ED to the federal level. Asking a local or state government to seek congressional action every time they want to build a new hightway, or widen a two-land road to a four-lane road doesn't stike me as practical. I also fear it would open Pandora's box for pork barrel negotiations and compromise. Perhaps that example illustrates why the issue is not eminent domain, but rather, it's the interpretation of public use.

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

 

[EddyC]

One of the local towns near me noticed that members of the public were walking from a bus stop on the grass or in the road. They wanted to deal with this problem by installing a sidewalk. This installation would require the taking of 5-ft of property from each homeowner along the route. About 12 homeowners were affected. It took 2 years of fighting to get this simple sidewalk installed. After hearing about this, I would love to attend every local zoning meeting and voice my opinion in favor of whatever project was proposed, just to anger the opponents.

 

[HgTX]

Back to the original question...

Ethical questions based on personal feelings rather than legality are not exclusive to eminent domain.

(1) During the days of apartheid, if one was opposed to the policies of the South African government, would it be ethical to work on South African projects?

(2) If one is anti-war, is it ethical to design household appliances for GE when GE also makes weapons?

(3) If one believes in equal rights for women, is it ethical for one to work on a project designing a building to be erected in Saudi Arabia?

(4) What about a woman working on a project involving a golf course that doesn't admit women? Or back in the day, a black engineer working on a project on a golf course that didn't admit blacks?

And if the answer to any of the above is "not ethical", what is one to do? Quit the job? Stay with the job but refuse the project? Can one's career survive such a move?


#3 above has given me pause. Before I became a Bridge Person I was planning to be a Skyscraper Person, and I wondered how I would handle being asked to work on a project taking place in a country that doesn't respect my rights. Actually I'd have a double whammy because my religion isn't popular in Arabic countries either. What would I have done if I'd been asked to visit the site? Or would my career have suffered because my employers would know I couldn't very well go to the country in question?


Et cetera.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376

 

[patdaly]

Greg, yes, you buy the land from the previous ( private ) owner. And EWH is correct about mineral rights, amazingly enough, the land I just bought still has the mineral rights intact!
Short of liens, which are disclosed in a latter day title search, you are issued a deed to the property, which conveys possession. Taxes, which have become a contentious issue will only survive the government, which in my estimation is heading to shaky ground with decisions such as the one we write about.
In the end, it all hinges on who has more firepower and will, the people or the Gvt., and thats why we still are ( theoretically ) free.

 

[BobPE]

RCEJD:

I found your post midly offensive...

"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 ..."

We do understand, very clearly I might add, what the ramifications of our involvement in the engineering and planning process will be to the public.

While we sit back and argue about the issue, it has the positive effect of causing us to stick our heads out of our little holes in the ground to find out what the lawyers messed up again....

You see, we are the ones that will decide, yes, we can build that there,,, then the politicians and their lawyers kick in to high gear...the end result now can be that the poor SOB that lived on their land for generations is suddenly disenfranchised from the american dream to benefit "the public."

Bob

 

[CIVGEOT]

Bob:

I will let RCEJD respond, but I understood his comment to be more of an issue of misunderstanding the legal ramifications which appeat to be occurring in previous posts. This had nothing to do with the engineering professional opinions.