Eminent Domain Law/Policy in Texas Essay

The high-pitched bena Law is basically delimitate as the imposition of the post possess by the state to appropriate snobby property and to renovate or reconstruct the property for public use. 1 It varies in different jurisdictions. The bring in that will be taken due to the lofty arena virtue is called oath proceedings. thither is a process in seizing a property. First, the political science will try to negotiate with the owner and offer an arrive or a thing of equal value to compensate the outrage of the property.Second, if the owner opts not to let go of his property, the state would exercise its power by imposing the noble police and appeal to the court. Third, a interview would be scheduled and argue with the fact that they have negotiated to purchase the land, and the owner would be casted upon with non-compliance with the governments request. Lastly, if both sides were not satisfied wherefore they can appeal to the court. 2 This is a vicious cycle that brea ches the law of nonpareil-on-one property and also in some way step on human rights.Though it is legally and constitutionally correct, there are negative implications attached to the undertakings of this law. Here are evidences which prove that the eminent law is applied. In Texas, a debate sprouted because of the undefined limitations of the eminent res publica law. Frank Corte represented the state of San Antonio to verticalify that eminent law is scarce taking of private property and make in accessible and utile for the public. Basically, he is talking of economic maturement.A counter argument was supply by Kyle Janek, who represents Houston, that there should be technical discourses some the amendments of the bill and to outline clearly what is public use. Janeks claim is that there are always hidden motives with the eminent domain law. Another perspective was introduced when butt Whitmire of Houston, said that is economic development really the publics reside? It was brought about the effects of this law and enumerated some of its negative implications such(prenominal) as threatening of job creation, urban renewal, and state revenue resources.Based on what Whitmire has stimulated, Tommy Williams of The Woodlands claimed that the eminent law only made the other entities or such economically-driven officials to condemn private properties that would serve their purpose well. In the end of the debate, Kyle Janeks suggestion of further supplying the reasons for abhorrence has been implemented. In Texas law, it is stated that the government can seize private property only for economic purposes and particularly for public use.Jeff Coyle attacked the eminent law and said why would Governor Perry attribute a bill with loopholes in it? Coyle ideal that the loopholes would best serve the private interest of those who seize properties. In this scenario, Coyle is defending the rights of privately owned properties and its condemnation with the use o f the eminent law. He implies that the eminent law has a self-serving bias for the politician who suddenly seizes the property. Eminent law is for economic development but also abstraction since it problematize on how can the people cherish their own property though it is for public use.This was from the Texas Senate News and basically claims similar the first other debates, the definition of what is public use. Bill peacock of the Texas Public Policy Foundation stressed that the transfer of a private ownership to one another using the eminent law must(prenominal) be forbidden. Peacock also stressed that the court is too gratuitous in interpreting what is for public use and not. Basically, the eminent law has not been limited to any private property and all that is said to be needed for public use can be seized by the government.The business line of Peacocks arguments came from Jenifer Zeigler who is an attorney in the Institute for Justice and claims in her proposed Senate bil l 7 that the public use should be clearly defined and all of the transactions and negotiations should be done constitutionally. In the end of it, lawyer Joe Doegey made the closing remarks and defended the government that the eminent law enforcement was critically thought of and that all the properties that have been claimed were all constituted for public use.The committee and so decided for adjourning the meeting and the case can be subjected in in store(predicate) meetings to come. This was what transpired in the meeting of the Joint Committee to Study the Power of Eminent Domain in 2005. In defense of the Eminent Law, Michael Allan Wolf, a prof in the University of Richmond which focuses on property law, states that the eminent law is considerably for the people since it promotes to claim private properties into public use. He had given examples such as railways and assembly lines.In the creation of railways, it made some move of the state more accessible. Trading and other business transactions were a lot easier. With the birth of the assembly lines, people near the area are most likely of getting employed. With this positive note, he even claimed that the eminent domain is the engine of public progress since the people is making straightforward use of the seized facilities.In summary, there is no clear limitation for the eminent domain law. Even if there many revisions or suggestion to sterilize the law better, the economically-driven politicians will always find a way to utilise this law. Abuse of the law is what occurs in this point. There are no restrictions for the one who holds the power and can claim the properties that he may wish. The eminent domain law is powerful and useful but at the same time, it as like a double-edged sword that the people adhere to.There are act of the government and other institution to revise this law in protection the properties of the public and also to sustain the peoples rights. Much justified, the eminent doma in law is being abused by the ones who are in the position. It is up to us the people who should know about the law and better yet our rights. The eminent domain law is made not to seize property irrationally but a condemnation for economic development. It is a law since it is very powerful yet it is just like a policy since it has many loopholes in it.