Emminent Domain
Emminent Domain
(OP)
The recent US supreme court ruling regarding property seizure has significant implications.
htt p://www.cn n.com/2005 /LAW/06/23 /scotus.pr operty.ap/ index.html
As an engineer, would you think it ethical to work on a private works "development" project where the original property owners have been displaced due to this ruling?
Regards,
htt
As an engineer, would you think it ethical to work on a private works "development" project where the original property owners have been displaced due to this ruling?
Regards,





RE: Emminent Domain
In answer to your question, yes I do think it's ethical to work on such a project for a couple of reasons. First, you have an ethical obligation to support yourself and your family. From a practical matter, that decision would be after the execution of eminent domain; therefore, would really serve no purpose. If you don't work on it, someone else will and the damage will not be alleviated.
The ethical thing to do is to do what you can to change the Law, or the Court, so that it cannot happen.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Emminent Domain
Part of the reason the USA came into being was rebelling and going to war against property seizure.
While I agree with your statement that it is an extremely liberal interpretation of eminent domain, I would have a difficult time rationalizing to myself that it would be ethical to work on a project that forcibly displaces a portion of the public that supposedly I am to help serve so that a private enterprise may utilize that property for (primarily) it's own benefit and perhaps provide a secondary benefit to the public through "economic development" It smacks once again of bean counters being put in charge.
If I don't do it, someone else will is one of the altars on which ethics are sacrificed. Such projects at least to me have a taint of dishonesty about them and I have taken an oath "I shall participate in none but honest enterprises". A private company wishing to displace property owners for a development project should purchase that property directly. If not all affected are willing to sell, so be it, project cancelled or moved somewhere else. One of my concerns is a developer going to a municipal government up front and talking them into seizing the property directly without first approaching the current owner(s).
Regards,
RE: Emminent Domain
But I agree with Cajun, it is the law of the land and we as engineers are obligated to continue forward and work within the law....
Bob
RE: Emminent Domain
It is ethical to work on such a project, but the ethics of an individual are not only to obey the law of the land, but also their moral standards. If "your" moral standards prevent you from working on such a project, then you have an ethical obligation to "yourself" to not work on such a project. There are engineers out there that will not work on military/government contracts because of the implications of human casualties that can occur due to their contribution to the project. That is perfectly OK.
RE: Emminent Domain
Some of the cases are particularly disturbing, such as neighborhoods confiscated to make parking lots. City governments are complicit, too, basically telling citizenry that they are not productive enough as a tax base.
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com-SolidWorks API VB programming help
RE: Emminent Domain
==> I think it is a travesty, to think an American can lose their home to a private interest.
Americans cannot lose their homes to private interests. This case is about a public city administration exercising eminent domain. The government has been doing this for years to build highways and public schools.
==> If I don't do it, someone else will is one of the altars on which ethics are sacrificed.
Whether or not you choose to act or not is in accordance with your own ethics, but has no bearing on the choices and ethics of another. I fully understand why someone would choose not to work on such a project, but in my opinion, this would be case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. What's done is done, and no amount of protesting will undo the acquisitionn. As a citizen, I rile against the decision, and will use my voice and vote to change the government so that it doesn't happen again. However, I would much rather see an engineer with good ethics insure that the land, which has already been taken, is not abused by those who don't care.
Your point about such a project having a taint of dishonesty is very valid, and probably true. All the more reason for ethical engineers to get involved. This is not a situation where corners should be cut.
But remember, private companies do not have the power of eminent domain, and this is not a private matter. This is a city appropriating the land.
In case there is any doubt, I do not like the decision, nor am I in favor of it, it is what it is. Now, it is incumbent on us to change the people who made the decision.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Emminent Domain
I think you need to re-read the decision. The decision effectively allows cities to transfer property from one private party to another, not just to build public schools, etc.
This means that a city can seize private property to allow a developer to put up condos or build a mall for profit, on the basis of public benefit, which migh be very marginal.
TTFN
RE: Emminent Domain
Yesterdays ruling sided with a public entity that was furthering the interests of a private developer (the public entity was just a political front in this case) and not for a road our public works project...for a hotel and conference center......And those people lost their homes to that private entity...who craftfully used eminent domain to their benefit.....This was what the case was about....Read up my friend....It is a new world out there today....
Bob
RE: Emminent Domain
The question was whether or not it is ethical to work on a project after such action has been taken.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Emminent Domain
The point that you took exception to is important--CajunCenturion was absolutley accurate that the government took the land. What the government does with the land they took is immaterial to the people who lost their land (at prices dictated by the government). This decision allows marginal politicians to interfere between landowners and developers.
I can and will work to get rid of any local politician that takes advantage of this stupid decision and will hope every day that several of the Supremes will suddenly feel that their health won't allow them to continue on the court. Giving them a position for life was the single stupidest thing that the framers of the constitution did.
David
RE: Emminent Domain
I was always ok with the process before yesterdays ruling...it helped a lot of people whether they liked it or not. Now, the process can theoriticaly be tailored to help on person, the one who profits from the private development. My fear is that our process of elections will not allow us to protect the vulnerable citizens quickly enough....
Bob
RE: Emminent Domain
I can't agree with you more on this issue of a few agenda driven (bought with developers $$$$$) politicians sticking their heads into something they know very little about (most politicians are not land developers). Their is nothing wrong with the land developers doing their own footwork acquiring the land. I've seen that lately since I live among some real sweetheart 10 acre parcels but they pay a market price for the land and so they should. But in this case (I haven't read the articles) it seems like joe public is getting screwed.
RE: Emminent Domain
RE: Emminent Domain
Implicit in my statement is that I would not work on such a project and indeed it is my choice. I am in fact glad to see various views on the decision come forth as I feel it will have a direct impact on how some of us do our work.
Regards,
RE: Emminent Domain
Regards,
RE: Emminent Domain
http://www
We have to cut the funding for PBS, those damm people keep insisting on telling the truth.
RE: Emminent Domain
Again, I am not in favor of this decision, as it is a far more liberal interpretation of the 5th Amendment than I'm comfortable with, but let's not paint it to be something that it's not. Nor I might add, is this a precedent setting decision. In 1906, eminant domain was used to aid a gold-mining company in Hawaii, and 12 years ago, the city of Las Vegas took private land to build a public parking garage.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Emminent Domain
I use eminent domain a lot in work I do...I fear for people now that I no longer need to worry about such insignificant things as property lines....
I will let you know how business pans out with the new ruling as we engineers will be on the front lines....
Bob
RE: Emminent Domain
I'm sure it will affect you somewhat. I'm working on a MS/MBA in Urban Land Development and this an extremely interesting topic in that area of study. I'm sure some day I will be involved in long term land management and usage.
RE: Emminent Domain
Case in point, City of Brea, CA, proposed a downtown revitalization which involved razing the downtown area of existing homes and businesses to put up new homes and businesses. It's clearly arguable that the current state s probably "better" for the community as a whole.
The basic "greater good" argument presumably still holds sway, and in the cited case above, there will probably be a net benefit to the community as a whole.
The profit motive is still troubling and it's unclear whether public officials, who are often beholden to or otherwise beneficient from companies that profit from these developments, can remain true to their public trust.
Maybe we should lobby to license public officials
TTFN
RE: Emminent Domain
They could get PDH's in "Plain and Fancy Mis-Direction" and "How to say less with more words"
David
RE: Emminent Domain
RE: Emminent Domain
Eminent Domain was sited to purchase homes from people who didn't want to move so Arlington could build "The Dallas Cowboys" a new stadium. The amount given for the property was not enough for the owners to by a home of equal value elsewhere. May a Double wide somewhere out in the country.
The City is actually taking receipt of the property, so eminent domain is really legal. Tax Payers will build the stadium and lease it. The Tax payers will break even, the past home oweners are homeless and eventually Jerry Jones will own the property. THAT is BS.
RE: Emminent Domain
That is not how it works. The US Supreme Court does not (at least ideologically) create law. They determine if the interpretation and enforcement of laws written by local, state or federal legislative bodies are consistent with the "intent" of the US Constitution.
As a refresher:
The implementation of eminent domain relies upon state or local laws. In this case, the law implementing eminent domain allowed a liberal interpretation of "public use", and the Supreme Court ruled that neither the law as written nor the interpretation or execution were unconstitutional.
If you oppose this decision you should stop bickering about it on Internet forums and let your local lawmakers know that you oppose this use of eminent domain, and that you want the law in your municipality rewritten to clearly prohibit this use of eminent domain.
RE: Emminent Domain
He shoud be all for it....
LOL
Bob
RE: Emminent Domain
While I agree that the supreme court does not "create" laws, the weight of their decisions has a direct impact on current law. This decision can be used to to force other states to liberalize their emminent domain statutes a potential example of case law being able to supplant statutory law.
My personal values tell me that it is wrong for a municipal (or for that matter any) government to act as the agent for a private corporation and use emminent domain to secure property for that entity under the guise of greater public good. As a result my sense of ethics would prevent me from working on a project generated this way. Others have their own opinion and should feel free to express them accordingly.
For example (not to speak for the poster), CajunCenturion does not agree with the decision but believes it ethical to work on a project that came about through the use of this interpretation of emminent domain. Others have made comments on the decision but perhaps have not decided on how they would act.
Regards,
RE: Emminent Domain
If I were the displaced home owner, I would be angry as hell, but would go ballistic if after taking my land, they let it go to waste and failed to produce the expected benefit.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Emminent Domain
It is a perversion of the law that frankly, I just don't understand what the justices were thinking....Maybe this approach from the common citizen will make them see the light of day....
Bob
RE: Emminent Domain
Yes, it will be worth watching.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Emminent Domain
Wonder if they even noticed that they've stepped over to the other side of the street.
TTFN
RE: Emminent Domain
RE: Emminent Domain
RE: Emminent Domain
When you buy land from the state it is subject to the laws of the state. That includes, as it always has, eminent domain.
So, the real problem is that when people buy land they delude themselves that it is now theirs for eternity, whereas it is more like a long term lease, and you can guess who has the final say.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Emminent Domain
Engineering is a great profession, although there are some good point raised here, their are gross interpretations of the New London case and the implications. I do not agree with with Steven's opinion, but the case is about the City developing a carefully formulated development plan, that involved the taking of parcels along a waterway for the purposes of promoting economic development which the court reasoned has a legitimate governmental purpose because this was a traditional and long accepted government function. Midkiff and other cases have long held that you can not take property thru ED for private use, however, there is a long series of cases that define public use ... The case presents no evidence that Pfizer was known at the time the City conducted the taking.
I do not like or agree with the case, and do not agree with the reasoning. Understand the case clearly points out that the States can statutorily limit the takings, i.e. California requires the area to be blighted, etc.
Engineers are very intelligent and analytical but why is it the profession has a way of sitting back and arguing about issues they do not bother to fully understand ...
The case is worth reading ... and if you struggle with some of the language and phrase applications consult with a a site like www.findlaw.com for assistance.
Some great comments above, especially about the dissents filed.
RE: Emminent Domain
RE: Emminent Domain
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Emminent Domain
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Emminent Domain
RE: Emminent Domain
RE: Emminent Domain
Our steadfast representatives in Washington are apparently at least observant enough to notice that the populous in general is not very fond of this decision.
I don't think this is the right way to fix the problem created by the court, but at least is might in-turn spur some action at the state and local levels.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161279,00.html
RE: Emminent Domain
The ruling cannot be reversed, except by the Supreme Court itself, and that won't happen unless a similar case comes before it, and the Court agrees to hear the case. It also stand to reason that you'd have to have a different makeup of Justices as well, and Justice O'Connor was a dissenter on this issue, as was the next likely retiree, Justice Renquist.
So what would you propose?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Emminent Domain
from Part 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution should be interpreted to mean that ED should be controlled at the Federal level, as it is discussed in the fifth ammendment. That would entitle Congress to enact legislation preventing state or local governments from using ED to transfer ownership from one private party to another.
This would of course be messy.
Alternately, the Constitution could be ammended. This is probably the best idealogical solution, although it has been a while since we have actually done this. The mood and time might be right for it however. I haven't met anyone who agrees with the court's decision on this.
RE: Emminent Domain
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
TTFN
RE: Emminent Domain
==> The mood and time might be right for it however.
Yes, for now, but will the mood last. The reason the amendment process is so involved, deliberate, and drawn out is to prevent emotional responses to drive the amendment process. Similar to others, I am angry over this decision, just as is almost everyone I know. However, even though that anger may be the impetus to call for an Amendment, it is not the right frame of mind for the process.
Further, the issue, at least from perspective, is not eminent domain per se. The issue is the interpretation of 'public use'. I think it would be a mistake to try to define 'public use' in Constitutional terms.
I also think it would be impractical to restrict ED to the federal level. Asking a local or state government to seek congressional action every time they want to build a new hightway, or widen a two-land road to a four-lane road doesn't stike me as practical. I also fear it would open Pandora's box for pork barrel negotiations and compromise. Perhaps that example illustrates why the issue is not eminent domain, but rather, it's the interpretation of public use.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Emminent Domain
RE: Emminent Domain
Ethical questions based on personal feelings rather than legality are not exclusive to eminent domain.
(1) During the days of apartheid, if one was opposed to the policies of the South African government, would it be ethical to work on South African projects?
(2) If one is anti-war, is it ethical to design household appliances for GE when GE also makes weapons?
(3) If one believes in equal rights for women, is it ethical for one to work on a project designing a building to be erected in Saudi Arabia?
(4) What about a woman working on a project involving a golf course that doesn't admit women? Or back in the day, a black engineer working on a project on a golf course that didn't admit blacks?
And if the answer to any of the above is "not ethical", what is one to do? Quit the job? Stay with the job but refuse the project? Can one's career survive such a move?
#3 above has given me pause. Before I became a Bridge Person I was planning to be a Skyscraper Person, and I wondered how I would handle being asked to work on a project taking place in a country that doesn't respect my rights. Actually I'd have a double whammy because my religion isn't popular in Arabic countries either. What would I have done if I'd been asked to visit the site? Or would my career have suffered because my employers would know I couldn't very well go to the country in question?
Et cetera.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: Emminent Domain
Short of liens, which are disclosed in a latter day title search, you are issued a deed to the property, which conveys possession. Taxes, which have become a contentious issue will only survive the government, which in my estimation is heading to shaky ground with decisions such as the one we write about.
In the end, it all hinges on who has more firepower and will, the people or the Gvt., and thats why we still are ( theoretically ) free.
RE: Emminent Domain
I found your post midly offensive...
"Engineers are very intelligent and analytical but why is it the profession has a way of sitting back and arguing about issues they do not bother to fully understand ..."
We do understand, very clearly I might add, what the ramifications of our involvement in the engineering and planning process will be to the public.
While we sit back and argue about the issue, it has the positive effect of causing us to stick our heads out of our little holes in the ground to find out what the lawyers messed up again....
You see, we are the ones that will decide, yes, we can build that there,,, then the politicians and their lawyers kick in to high gear...the end result now can be that the poor SOB that lived on their land for generations is suddenly disenfranchised from the american dream to benefit "the public."
Bob
RE: Emminent Domain
I will let RCEJD respond, but I understood his comment to be more of an issue of misunderstanding the legal ramifications which appeat to be occurring in previous posts. This had nothing to do with the engineering professional opinions.