t*d
发帖数: 1290 | 1 It’s not an issue that gets much attention, but the government has the
right to seize your house, business, and/or land, forcing you into the
street. This mighty power, called “eminent domain,” is enshrined in the U.
S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment: “… nor shall private property be taken
for public use without just compensation.” Every single state constitution
also stipulates that a person whose property is taken must be justly
compensated and that the property must be put to public use. This should
mean that if your house is smack-dab in the middle of a proposed highway,
the government can take it, pay you market value, and build the highway.
Whether or not this is a power the government should have is very much open
to question, but what makes it worse is the abuse of this supposedly limited
power. Across the country, local governments are stealing their citizens’
property, then turning around and selling it to corporations for the
construction of malls, condominiums, parking lots, racetracks, office
complexes, factories, etc.
The Institute for Justice — the country’s only nonprofit, public-interest
law firm with a libertarian philosophy — spends a good deal of time
protecting individuals and small businesses from greedy corporations and
their partners in crime: bureaucrats armed with eminent domain. In 2003, it
released a report on the use of “governmental condemnation” (another name
for eminent domain) for private gain. No central data collection for this
trend exists, and only one state (Connecticut) keeps statistics on it. Using
court records, media accounts, and information from involved parties, the
Institute found over 10,000 such abuses in 41 states from 1998 through 2002.
Of these, the legal process had been initiated against 3,722 properties,
and condemnation had been threatened against 6,560 properties. (Remember,
this is condemnation solely for the benefit of private parties, not for so-
called legitimate reasons of “public use.”)
In one instance, the city of Hurst, Texas, condemned 127 homes so that a
mall could expand. Most of the families moved under the pressure, but ten
chose to stay and fight. The Institute writes:
A Texas trial judge refused to stay the condemnations while the suit was
ongoing, so the residents lost their homes. Leonard Prohs had to move while
his wife was in the hospital with brain cancer. She died only five days
after their house was demolished. Phyllis Duval’s husband also was in the
hospital with cancer at the time they were required to move. He died one
month after the demolition. Of the ten couples, three spouses died and four
others suffered heart attacks during the dispute and litigation. In court,
the owners presented evidence that the land surveyor who designed the roads
for the mall had been told to change the path of one road to run through
eight of the houses of the owners challenging the condemnations.
In another case, wanting to “redevelop” Main Street, the city of East
Hartford, Connecticut, used eminent domain to threaten a bakery/deli that
had been in that spot for 93 years, owned and operated by the same family
during that whole time. Thus coerced, the family sold the business for $1.75
million, and the local landmark was destroyed. But the redevelopment fell
through, so the lot now stands empty and the city is in debt.
The city of Cypress, California, wanted Costco to build a retail store on an
18-acre plot of land. Trouble was, the Cottonwood Christian Center already
owned the land fair and square, and was planning to build a church on it.
The city council used eminent domain to seize the land, saying that the new
church would be a “public nuisance” and would “blight” the area (which
is right beside a horse-racing track). The Christian Center got a federal
injunction to stop the condemnation, and the city appealed this decision. To
avoid further protracted legal nightmares, the church group consented to
trade its land for another tract in the vicinity.
But all of this is small potatoes compared to what’s going on in Riviera
Beach, Florida:
City Council members voted unanimously to approve a $1.25 billion
redevelopment plan with the authority to use eminent domain to condemn at
least 1,700 houses and apartments and dislocate 5,100 people. The city will
then take the property and sell the land to commercial yachting, shipping,
and tourism companies.
If approved by the state, it will be one of the biggest eminent domain
seizures in U.S. history.
In 1795, the Supreme Court referred to eminent domain as “the despotic
power.” Over two centuries later, they continue to be proven right. | w*****2
发帖数: 1458 | 2 这就是为什么要权力不能过分集中。任何政府都是腐败的. 独立的媒体也可以起到监督
的作用。 | t****1
发帖数: 827 | 3 美国也有强制拆迁，但是必须是出于公共利益，比如说修路，造桥，建立自然保护区，
需要经过听证，过程很复杂，不服从的还可以告到法院。出于商业利益的开发，一律不
允许强制拆迁。前几年，我们附近镇上出现过这个案例，最后告到法院，结果法院判决
不准强拆。在保护私人土地权益方面，美国做的比中国好多了。。 | s*****r
发帖数: 11545 | 4 有啊, 叫 taking 或 regulation, 只不过美国钱多地方大, 冲突不明显而已.
还有土地所有权问题, 美国私人拥有土地, 中国政府拥有土地, 都有其历史背景的啊. |
|
