NINE YEARS after the SCOTUS supported the eminent domain action in the Kelo v City of New London, CT, for the purposes of (unguaranteed) economic development, the former property of the homeowners remains vacant and undeveloped as of February, 2014. This is a horrible abuse of the power granted by the 5th and 14th Amendments.
I think that we do need a lot more restrictions when it comes to eminent domain in the United States. In some cases, you have cities seizing property so they can hand it over to private developers to build strip malls. We should only allow such a process to happen when it's for essential government services.
I agree that there should be more restrictions on eminent domain. I feel that the government should create a system that states a minimum amount that they are required to pay to any individual whose land that they wish to posses. This document should be made public knowledge to all.
I think that overall eminent domain should only be used in extreme cases, I don't think eminent domain should ever be used to the benefit of a private business, I think that the laws should strongly favor the property owner in a eminent domain seizure situation and that the requirement to justify it should be very tough.
This question is one that many people have been asking for a very long time because the subject matter is not one that is easily answered. There is a large group of people that believe the answer is simple and a quick resolution can be had. But that is not the case in this situation.
I believe most of the rules regarding eminent domain are meant for the better good of the people. Although it is a troubling problem for those who experience it, they are often offered more than reasonable amounts for their property. The only thing I would like to see more restrictions on is for the use of economic development. I think a lot of time these cases are unnecessary and we shouldn't force people to sell their land just because someone else wants to make money.