State Laws referencing the use of Eminent domain

Discussion in 'Homesteading Questions' started by mama2littleman, Jun 24, 2005.

  1. mama2littleman

    mama2littleman El Paso

    Nov 8, 2004
    OK, I was reading a Fox News areticle and it stated that:

    At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

    Here is a link to the entire article:,2933,160479,00.html

    My question is, can anyone tell me which states are liberla with their interpretation of use for eminent domain and which states are mor conservative in their interpretation? I figure we have most statews represented here, annd that someone from each one could look up the info for their state. I'd do the research myself, but I am a little bogged down and am in the middle of writting a 40 page paper that is due by tonight.


  2. indypartridge

    indypartridge Well-Known Member Supporter

    Oct 25, 2004
    In Indiana, the subject came up this spring in House Bill 1063 which would amend Indiana Law so that

    "...eminent domain may not be used by a person to acquire property:
    (1) for a commercial use; or
    (2) to transfer any interest in the property to another person."

    As a result of this bill being introduced, a committee was formed:

    Eminent Domain Study Committee

    (b) For the purposes of this SECTION, "commerical use" includes the following:
    (1) Private residential development or use of the property.
    (2) Private development of the property under a lease.
    (3) Use of the property for retail or industrial purposes.

    (c) There is established the interim study committee on eminent domain. The committee shall study the use of eminent domain, especially where the proposed use of the property being acquired by eminent domain does not relate directly to providing a governmental service or fulfilling a governmental responsibility but is, rather, a commercial use.

    (d) The committee shall study criteria that could be applied when the acquisition of property by eminent domain for a commercial use is proposed, including the following:
    (1) Minimum price offers to the owner of the real property.
    (2) Significance of promoting or retaining gainful employment.
    (3) Significance of business opportunities.

    What is scary is that in everything I could find about this committee, there was nothing to suggest they want to restrict the use of eminient domain as the original bill requested.

  3. CindyOR

    CindyOR Well-Known Member

    Jul 23, 2004
    Interesting that you bring this topic up. I think land owners should pay attention to what is going on in this area.
    Yesterday (6/23/05) on a talk radio show ( out of the Portland, OR area they were talking about this. I only heard bits and pieces, but what I heard was very disturbing and affects all landowners.
    From what I gathered, there was a court decision that says that it's ok to do a land condemnation if it's for a good cause for the people. This doesn't only mean for new dams, it means for shopping centers too from what I could gather. If a developer decides your land meets his needs, and he had the support of the government agency he's working with for developing his project, they can condemn your land. This is scary and it seems to have snuck right past us.
    I know that should this happen to us, we could not go and buy another piece of property like the one we have - the prices are simply too high now in our area. And the thought of having to refence a new piece of property - don't make me even think of doing that again!
    Something all landowners should know more about and then I think this decision needs to be overturned.

    Cindy, OR

  4. palani

    palani Well-Known Member

    Jun 12, 2005
    Early on in this country it was the land owners who were the electors. The idea being that no one in their right mind would elect a politician who was going to do something that would cause taxes on land to go out of sight. The electors we have now really don't care.

    I believe there was an Army manual from the 1930's that mentioned that all democracys will eventually fail because the electors decide they can vote themselves privileges out of the treasury. Does this seem like what is happening here?
  5. BamaSuzy

    BamaSuzy Well-Known Member

    May 10, 2002
    The U.S. Supreme Court just the same as burned the U.S. Constitution this week with their ruling on eminent domain....landowners should be up in arms.....they ruled it was o.k. for a government to take your private land and then sell it to a for-profit developer....

    Eminent domain was created for utilities and roads and that is bad enough but to let governments then sell your land to developers is a violation of our rights to own property....wake up folks we need to all be taking a stand on this!
  6. Orville

    Orville Well-Known Member

    Jan 25, 2005
    This is such a serious matter I have to comment. The very foundation of our liberty, not to mention property value, is that our property cannot be arbitrarily confiscated by wealthy people who have political connections. The recent supreme court (no capitals) decision, in fact, states that the local government can confiscate private property for the purpose of selling it to another private party who just happens to be wealthier than the previous owner. Do contact your representatives and tell them (yes, you can tell your servants what to do) to address this matter with specific legislation in order to protect property rights. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but if local governments were to suddenly take advantage of this ruling and engage in land-grabbing, I can forsee a serious peasant's revolt.