Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: General

Background. Inherent governmental power of property seizure via English common law. i.e.

Download Presentation

Eminent Domain

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

1. Eminent Domain An Avenue for Economic Development Raymon Cancino

2. Background Inherent governmental power of property seizure via English common law. i.e. “Dobbie Process” King’s seizure of private property. Bill of Rights: (1791) Amends private ownership rights in U.S “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.”

3. Eminent Domain First Policy Cycle: (150 years) Defined as the government’s power to take personal property for “public use” Most common projects have been public interest projects such as highways, railways, schools, hospitals and government buildings.

4. Implications Negative: Loss of private property due to private interests Private interests gain most of the possible positive results. Gentrification Positive: Improvement of struggling economic communities Rise of development Rise of governmental tax-revenues to help public projects

5. Process Models Heuristic Approach Policy Cycle Multiple Streams Model States with budget problems will have more success in using eminent domain President in power might not hold libertarian ideology of property rights so essential to override supreme court. Difference between (Federal v. State v. City) constitutions will cause different outcomes. Public Choice Model Issue Networks Large amount of various stakeholders that do not have specifically obvious dominance over the policy. (outside of President and Supreme Court)

6. Policy Cycle 2nd wave policy cycle: (1998-Present) Redefining public use to include public benefit. In 1998 New London Project to redevelop older neighborhood to meet the possible demands of the new Pfizer research facility. Kelo v. City of New London 2005

7. Policy Cycle Key Players (US Supreme Court Decision 5-4) Elite Theory (Private Developers, Large corporations, (Pfizer, Large private developers) Implications (Redefining public use as any possible benefits that new development might bring to the city (Modernized Reaganomics, Traditional concepts of economic development (1st and 2nd wave) Example: Charles: Oakland Port presentation)

8. Policy Cycle Current Status is at Policy Formulation/Decision Making Stage. Not every state is currently expanding eminent domain powers to include this decision. Examples relevant to us? Currently 2nd wave example is K Street in Sacramento. In the future the currently starting redevelopment agency committees in S.F. While a traditional example is the High-speed rail project linking silicon valley with Los Angeles.

9. Major Stakeholders Government- State, Federal, Regional Economic Development Agencies (Issue Identification/ New London) President Bush: Executive Order (2006) only for Federal Gov’t, reiterating 1st wave policy limitations. (Agenda Setting) US Supreme Court (Policy Adoption) Private Development Firms Large Real Estate Firms Property Ownership Associations

10. Eminent domain at a glance Of the 44 states that were in session in 2006.  Legislatures passed bills in 28 states: Enacted in 24 states. Passed a constitutional amendment that was approved by voters on the ballot in 2 states—Louisiana and South Carolina Vetoed by the governor in 2 states—Arizona and New Mexico (the Iowa legislature overrode the governor's veto). (i.e Gov. Bill Richardson signature issue in Democratic Party, Ron Paul on the other aisle.

11. Eminent Domain at a glance

12. Most of which where to limit Implications of Kelo v. New London

13. Future Prognosis In California Prop. 90 failed in 2006 . Upcoming legislation in June 2008 will seek to limit governmental powers of using eminent domain. Sponsored by special interests Howard Jarvis taxpayers Association and California Farm Bureau Eminent Domain will be a last resort tool for cities and government to fulfill their redevelopment plans therefore any further limitations will only affect a small amount of situations and will only protect its citizens in pocket areas of government ( Federal v. State v. City). This is why its still in Formulation Stage Although Federal Policy will remain the same, Kelo (2005) will continue to allow any government agency the right to eminent domain where public use is defined also a public benefit.

14. Future Prognosis Eminent Domain will more than likely begin to become the strong arm of cities looking to increase tax revenues where negotiations have seized and private property owners are unwilling to compromise. Current stakeholders will more than likely stay the same. Unlikely changes are to happen because not a specifically politically polarizing issue to resend it back into a Agenda Setting phase.

  • Login