Eminent Domain Law in California Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Eminent Domain Law in atomic number 20 - Case Study warningSupreme Courts finding in Kelo v. City of New capital of the United Kingdom that the government may wasting disease superior vault of heaven to take property from its owner for the purpose of transferring it to a private developer (California). However, as noted above, the issues brought into the voter turn come forth arena were oversimplified by the media. Because of public concern about the possibility of rent control being phased out and the fact that both propositions were efforts to amend Article I, Section 19, of the California verbalize Constitution, the California voters made the conclusiveness to reject the proposition that they thought top executive do them the most harm, namely Proposition 98. Instead of certain debate leading to noble domain reforms, each political campaign waged in this battle pore on one issue only. Therefore, it is highly likely that further study of this issue will be necessary in an effort to determine what changes must be made to Article I, Section 19, of Californias State Constitution so that the public will be properly served.The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution applies to rights of persons and in terms of eminent domain states . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just recompense (U.S., par. 1). This compensation clause contains the requirement that the taking of private property be for a public use (U.S., par. 4). ... The California State Constitution was ratified on November 13, 1849, just prior to California attaining statehood in 1850. Because of this, a new state constitution was established in 1879 (California). Over the years, there have been many amendments, which makes the California constitution one of the longest in the nation. For purposes of this paper, however, Article I, Section 19, will be discussed. Article I is based on the Fifth Amendment, and Section 19 focuses on eminent domain. Implicatio ns of Kelo v. City of New LondonThe decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 opened discussion in California on how California law could be changed to further protect the rights of private homeowners and businesses while still using eminent domain for legitimate public purposes (Keene). Kelo found that a Connecticut redevelopment authority had the right to trance private property for hotels, shopping centers and other private developments, and it is well known that California real domain developers and hotel planners are always looking for a way to acquire land for private purposes. It was noted by the California Senate Local Government Committee that there was a similarity between eminent domain use in California and New London, Connecticut. Suggestions were made by the Committee as followsClarify translation of public use.Tighten the blight definition in Statute.Remove or lengthen time bound to challenge a blight designation.Proposition 98 and Proposition 99As a upshot of K elo, two propositions were initiated and presented to the people of California for a vote. Neither of these propositions completely resolves the possibility that private property might be seized by the government for private purposes. There are