2 ms·
It is absolutely true that they can take land for public use in the US. ‘Public use’ is the exact phrase used in the constitution. Building a road or trails ac
by dghlsakjg 2y ago
It is absolutely true that they can take land for public use in the US. ‘Public use’ is the exact phrase used in the constitution.
Building a road or trails across private land is literally a textbook example of eminent domain.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoIt isnt that simple. There is 250 years of case law defining what constitutes public use, and the situations where it can be justified. This includes when you can use it to build a road or trail, and when you cant.
- dghlsakjg 2y agoCan you point to some precedent where building a public road to a public park across unimproved land was not a valid use of the takings clause? The precedent is that eminent domain is remarkably unrestricted as to what constitutes 'public use' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London). Condemning occupied and habitable homes to build a shopping center is an allowed use per precedent at the federal level (additional restrictions apply in many states). Eminent domain for building a road is basically a given if that is the method that is chosen.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI do not have a citation. I dont like Kelo at all and doubt the current SCOTUS would rules that same, but understand the ruling. That said, in it's defense, the court was weighing the claimed benefit of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of tax revenue. They would not have ruled the same if the public benefit were a park bench with no economic value?