South Carolina Coastal Council were the Lucas’ property was essentially a “taking” of his property for a public purpose and therefore according to the Fifth Amendment he should have been compensated by the state for the loss of his personal property. David Lucas never questioned the states exercise of their police powers only his Constitutional right to be compensated for the taking of his property value. The state argued that they didn’t physically take the Lucas’ ocean front property they merely changed the planned purpose of the property, for the environmental greater good of society, resulting in a loss of investment but not a loss of property and they are not legally responsible for the reduction of the properties’ value. The state also stated in their respondent, that the Lucas’s knew there would be restrictions placed on his land that would reduce the property’s value, and that he could not expect that he would be free from government restrictions in the future.…
In the Kelo v. New London court case, Suzette Kelo and eight petitioners opposed a eminent domain taking “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city” (“Kelo” 472). Suzette Kelo claimed the “extensive improvements” that she had made on her house justified her ability to block this development plan (476). Others claimed that their “investment properties,” because they were not “blighted or otherwise in poor condition,” could not be taken by the government (476). Do Kelo’s and the other defendants’ claim to their property through proper maintenance and labor supersede the governments right to repossess the properties for economic development?…
The Claimant: The claimant must have possessory rights…
The Issue: Does the taking of the petitioner’s properties violate the “public use” restriction in the fifth amendment’s taking clause or is the “public use” clause valid for purposes of betterment for the community as a whole. Holding: The court ruled that the petitioner’s…
This law could potentially allow states to seize land when they do not…
John Bergson has the Old-World belief that, “land, in itself, is desirable. ”(13) For some, referring to Carl Linstrum, might see the land as an enigma. John Bergson has the idea that no one understands how to farm the land properly, and this he often discusses with Alexandra. He discusses that with Alexandra because he knows that Alexandra can farm the land properly better than any other settlers on the divide.…
For the past few years, utilization of eminent domain has been greatly debated. Eminent domain is the power of the government to extract one’s own property for communal operations in exchange for a reward. The just compensation clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution grants its use in the United States. Though the legality of eminent domain is honest, citizens are still susceptible to this inequitable act of tyranny.…
The Native’s land was taken over by people who wanted to sell it or use it to their advantage, not because it held any meaning to them as it did to the Natives. “They often expressed astonishment that land could be sold or negotiated through treaties... land was not a source of private profit but life, including the life of the spirits. Some lands were also sacred as they bore the graves of the dead” (Eck). The land that the Natives lived on was more than a place to habituate; it was abundant in Native culture and…
Supporters of the allotment pointed out how the natives didn’t use all the land they were given, but only a small portion. Although Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz said that “the Indians, with their possessions, will cease to stand in the way of the development of the…
Land has been an integral part of culture since the beginning of time. From the Homestead Act to the modern real estate development age, we care about where we live. We showed through the American Revolution that we are willing to fight for the land we love. However, under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment we are prevented from this specific action, fighting for something we love. The Takings Clause states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."…
More land to cultivate crops, more land to seemingly make the native populus more productive, more; because it was a right (Cachola). Thus, the Great Mahele was formulated, to distribute land equally in four parts among Hawaii’s inhabitants (Borreca). This land division eventually decimated native land ownership while boosting foreign land control intensely. Foreigners would be greatly benefited by the Mahele because of their right to buy land fee simple through the Resident Alien Act of 1850 and because of the “Adverse Possession” Law.…
That land came from someone, and that someone was the Native American population. Thousands of acres of land that rightfully belonged to the Native Americans were given to people who had loved there for only five years! It might even be considered positive that the Homestead Act didn’t work out the way it should have, and many people never received free…
The Government is Wrong From the 17th century to the present day Seizure of land has existed. New discovers or the Government coming in to take land or homes away from families and everyday people. To me this is not right and should not be happening to people. The Government shouldn’t be allowed to come and take away something that someone else has payed for. If someone has payed for the property and has always been on time with bills, the Government shouldn’t have the authority to take away what someone else made their own.…
Writing Assignment 3 2.1 Standing to Sue Facts: An Idaho couple, Jack and Maggie Turton, purchased a house in Jefferson County directly across from a gravel pit. Years later the county converted the pit into a landfill that collected environmentally harmful trash including: major appliances, animal carcasses, containers with hazardous content, leaking car batteries, and waste oil. The couple complained to the county but the county refused to act.…
In the Native American society, personal goods such as tools were considered yours only if you created them yourself. Even if something was owned it was considered readily replaceable. Despite their easy nature of personal goods, land was different. The land which crops were grown and the area their wigwams stood on were, in their minds, possessed by them in spite of the fact that they moved every couple of months to a new area. They also believed that their main hunting and gathering lands were theirs to claim.…