Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Eminent Domain

Eminent domain is the state’s power over every property that is within the state. The state has the power to appropriate any property to be used for public good. The owners of appropriated lands are entitled to reasonable compensations, which is mostly at the fair market value of the property under consideration (Sackman et al., 2014). Nevertheless, in the case of the town government and the farmers, I believe that eminent domain should not be exercised. The land should not be given to the Indians despite the fact that compensations would be paid to the farmers as constitutionally required.

It is worth noting that right of eminent has two limitations. Firstly, the property taken must be for the purpose of the public. The reason for taking the property must be to benefit the public. Not all the citizens might benefit equally because the property or use may not be local such as in a case of a highway that benefit the people living in that specific vicinity (Turnbull, 2012). However, all the people in general must be interested as well as have equal rights to use the property.

Although the benefits should be universal, all individuals in similar situation must have the capacity to share and not members of specific class or race. Therefore, if the basis of taking the property is not public interest, the exercised rights of eminent is tantamount to usurpation and confiscation (Turnbull, 2012).  More so, a mere taking is not sufficient because there should be ultimate utilization, which is in accordance with the reason, or purpose of which the property was taken for. Therefore, Las Vegas-style gambling on Indian land is not for public use.

In this case, it will be imperative to understand what a public use is. The property taken for public use such as court houses, custom houses, navy yards, post offices or fortifications as well as other imperatives to the security of property and life. In addition, public property may refer to parks, public schools, highway among other properties used for public use. In some cases however, land or property may be taken for private use (Turnbull, 2012). For instance, a land may be taken for a road whereby a road is required by a landowner for reaching public highway. However, in such cases, the public is also benefiting due to the advantages of the taken property.

Secondly, compensation for the property must be done. It is taken as provision for equity because the owners of the property may never use the property taken for public use. Additionally, ethically no one is supposed to benefit from the sweat of others (Sackman et al., 2014). Taking a property without compensation would therefore, amount to breach of individual rights. No one should be deprived of liberty, life or property with the process of law taking its course. Additionally, according to the Fifth Amendment, private property or land should never be taken without compensation Belloni et al. (2012). At least in the case of the town and the farmers, the government is willing to compensate the farmers as constitutionally required.

Additionally, it should be noted that the idea of the town of compensating the farmers does not consider the subjective value of the land to people and relatives of the people living in the taken land. Often, the consequences of taken land tend to be very harmful to the landowners. For instance, some end up misusing the money compensated to them. In this case, the town is only supposed to compensate the value of the land they will take. However, they will not compensate the subjective value of the people displaced as well as the indignity inflicting when they are shifted from the home (Turnbull, 2012).