Just Compensation
Unless you want to debate what exactly that just compensation is:
When Brian Adamek bought a couple hundred acres of rich black land soil from his father two years ago, he says he was planning for his future and the future of his wife and 3-month-old son.
But his dreams may be dashed if the city follows through with its plan to expand a nearby landfill by using its power to condemn his property for what city officials consider the greatest public good.
[snip]
City officials approached Adamek about his property a year and a half ago, offering $630 an acre for land he said he bought for $730 an acre from his father just a few months prior. Failure to accept that offer, Adamek said he was told, could mean he could get absolutely nothing for it should the city move forward with the authority enabled to them under the powers of eminent domain.
Public good is not public use. And the threat of taking the land and not paying seems a bit of an overreach.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
“And the threat of taking the land and not paying seems a bit of an overreach.”
Not to mention patently unconstitutional, but who’s paying attention anymore?
February 28th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Fifth Amendmant:
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 offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor 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.
No payment is flatly unconstitutional.
Problem is, can he afford to fight it?