Eminent domain is a subject that really hadn't meant much to me until recently. Most people don't even know what the term means. According to the American Heritage Dictionary eminent domain is "the right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner". I mistakenly thought eminent domain only applied to blighted properties and only when the "government" would convert the property to a park or some other "public" type use. However, recent history has changed my understanding of eminent domain.
Several years ago there was a small one man business across the street from our former house. The property was always neat, clean, and well-maintained. One afternoon the owner informed my husband of the upcoming close of his truck washing operation. The city had exercised the right of eminent domain to take his property. He had searched for another location for his operation and the same city that was forcing him out of his own property would not give him a permit to rent a bay on the other side of the same block because it wasn't in the approved "auto" area of town. The man lost his livelihood as well as his land. When the building was razed, it became a parking lot for the large corporation that built on the adjoining parcel. The right of eminent domain had been exercised; this man quietly disappeared from the neighborhood; and none of us really took notice.
A few years later in the Twin Cities area, two large corporations were able to force the sale of properties that the owners did not want to sell. Target built in downtown Minneapolis on property that the city seized in 1998 even though one of the owners was Opus Northwest who tried in vain to block the sale/seizure of their land. The second large corporation to lose its battle against eminent domain was the Walser company who lost their Richfield property in 2001 so that Best Buy could build their corporate headquarters on Highway 494. Still, eminent domain seemed to be aimed at businesses. Isn't the individual protected?
Not according to the U.S. Supreme court ruling last summer which confirmed local governments' authority to condemn property for more profitable private use. Translated that could mean that any person's property could be forced to be sold if a more profitable use came along. If one had a small cabin on the lake in the north woods and a large hotel chain decided they wanted to build a resort on that land, the property could be forced to be sold to the hotel chain because it was more profitable than the cabin AND would benefit the public by bringing in more taxes! The same goes for the small ocean front cottages or any property in the city where a developer could convince the city that they needed your property for a more profitable use! The ruling has raised a hue and cry across the nation among REALTORS because they recognize the inherent dangers in the court ruling. Unless local governments more clearly define/restrict the use of eminent domain the individual's property may not be safe from seizure. Eminent domain might be an issue each of us as individuals should be addressing in a more serious manner with our city law makers.
Comments