Eminent Domain Law in California Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Eminent Domain Law in California - Case Study Example Supreme Court's finding in Kelo v. City of New London that the government may use eminent domain to "take" property from its owner for the purpose of transferring it to a private developer (California). However, as noted above, the issues brought into the voting arena were oversimplified by the media. Because of public concern about the possibility of rent control being phased out and the fact that both propositions were efforts to amend Article I, Section 19, of the California State Constitution, the California voters made the decision to reject the proposition that they thought might do them the most harm, namely Proposition 98. Instead of informed debate leading to eminent domain reforms, each political campaign waged in this battle focused on one issue only. Therefore, it is highly likely that further study of this issue will be necessary in an effort to determine what changes must be made to Article I, Section 19, of California's State Constitution so that the public will be pro perly served. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution applies to rights of persons and in terms of eminent domain states: ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (U.S., par. 1). This compensation clause contains the requirement that "the taking of private property be for a public use" (U.S., par. 4). ... The California State Constitution was ratified on November 13, 1849, just prior to California attaining statehood in 1850. Because of this, a new state constitution was established in 1879 (California). Over the years, there have been many amendments, which makes the California constitution one of the longest in the nation. For purposes of this paper, however, Article I, Section 19, will be discussed. Article I is based on the Fifth Amendment, and Section 19 focuses on eminent domain. Implications of Kelo v. City of New London The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 opened discussion in California on how California law could be changed to further protect the rights of private homeowners and businesses while still using eminent domain for legitimate public purposes (Keene). Kelo found that a Connecticut redevelopment authority had the right to seize private property for hotels, shopping centers and other private developments, and it is well known that California real estate developers and hotel planners are always looking for a way to acquire land for private purposes. It was noted by the California Senate Local Government Committee that there was a similarity between eminent domain use in California and New London, Connecticut. Suggestions were made by the Committee as follows: Clarify definition of "public use." Tighten the "blight" definition in Statute. Remove or lengthen time limit to challenge a blight designation. Proposition 98 and Proposition 99 As a result of Kelo, two propositions were initiated and presented to the people of California for a vote. Neither of these propositions completely resolves the possibility that private property might be seized by the government for private purposes. There are