- Thread starter PinkLily
- Start date
Can property and land be taken?
S
sokitoumi
Guest
Under US law, and in other countries that have adopted the old English Common Law, and I would suspect even those that follow the Napoleonic legal tradition, real property is ultimately owned by the sovereign and then titled to person(s) or other legal entities. The sovereign retains the power to confiscate the land under conditions set out in the laws of the nation-state, in the US it is called Eminent Domain. The US Constitution requires the taking to be made only after due process of law is afforded the title holder and with "reasonable compensation."
So the idea that land can be taken by the sovereign power is not complete BS.
So the idea that land can be taken by the sovereign power is not complete BS.
And it's the same here.
Read the original post... "with no compensation".
Hence my response....
When driving between San Cristobal and Ban? and noticing all the homes and businesses earmarked for demolition for the highway construction, I wondered what sort of compensation their owners would receive. That is of course, if they have legal title.
Any government, US, Dominican, or any other who wants property will eventually get it, legally or illegally.....they will wear the property owner down, force them to incur large legal fees, tie up the property for years........until you accept a pittance, submit, or die.
Constitutional Rights -- Art. 8. Parr. 13 of the Dominican Constitution :
"El derecho de propiedad. En consecuencia, nadie puede ser privado de ella sino por causa justificada de utilidad p?blica o de inter?s social, previo pago de su justo valor determinado por sentencia de tribunal competente...."
"Property rights. Therefore, nobody may be deprived of them except for cause of public utility or social interest, previous payment of its just value determined by ruling of the competent court...."
"El derecho de propiedad. En consecuencia, nadie puede ser privado de ella sino por causa justificada de utilidad p?blica o de inter?s social, previo pago de su justo valor determinado por sentencia de tribunal competente...."
"Property rights. Therefore, nobody may be deprived of them except for cause of public utility or social interest, previous payment of its just value determined by ruling of the competent court...."
"Social interest", ah, there's the rub. How is "social interest" defined, and who does the defining?
In Conneticut, a neighborhood was taken by eminent domain in order to build an industrial park. The city used the argument that it was in the social interest to create jobs. The original owners sued, and they eventually lost their case in the Supreme Court, with the most liberal judge casting the deciding vote.
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyone who thinks they are protected by the law as far as property rights goes is sadly mistaken. The same is true in any country in the world, from the harsest dictatorship to the so-called "showcase" of democracy. Ultimately, the government owns your land.
In Conneticut, a neighborhood was taken by eminent domain in order to build an industrial park. The city used the argument that it was in the social interest to create jobs. The original owners sued, and they eventually lost their case in the Supreme Court, with the most liberal judge casting the deciding vote.
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyone who thinks they are protected by the law as far as property rights goes is sadly mistaken. The same is true in any country in the world, from the harsest dictatorship to the so-called "showcase" of democracy. Ultimately, the government owns your land.
I understand and agree Robert, but my point is, if you don't want to sell the property in the first place, the compensation is really beside the point.
In addition, the amount of compensation is set by the governmental body which is seizing the land (either local, state or federal, depending upon who is taking the land). That means you could end up with ten cents on the dollar or less. So whether it is compensated, or not, is really academic.
I don't think anyone who didn't want to leave their property would be grateful to receive $10,000 on a piece of property they paid $100,000 for.
Saying that it is compensated for is just a ruse to make the seizing authority feel better about themselves. It doesn't help the reluctant "compensatee" much at all.
In addition, the amount of compensation is set by the governmental body which is seizing the land (either local, state or federal, depending upon who is taking the land). That means you could end up with ten cents on the dollar or less. So whether it is compensated, or not, is really academic.
I don't think anyone who didn't want to leave their property would be grateful to receive $10,000 on a piece of property they paid $100,000 for.
Saying that it is compensated for is just a ruse to make the seizing authority feel better about themselves. It doesn't help the reluctant "compensatee" much at all.
in case of road expansion (to more lines) i understand the government offers compensation to land/property owners with titles. others are removed and relocated to government provided housing. bear in mind that most of those houses on the side of the road are built illegally in the first place. amount of compensation is of course decided by government. in case owners do not agree to the compensation offered they will be removed anyways.
i don't see why the government should care, after all everyone is offered something in return (sometimes better than original version) and the new road will be of benefit to all population.
i don't see why the government should care, after all everyone is offered something in return (sometimes better than original version) and the new road will be of benefit to all population.