Malcolm Rivera
Eminent domain is a highly controversial topic in Missouri, where the government's ability to seize private property for public use has been criticized for lacking adequate safeguards for citizens. The Missouri Constitution and state laws confer the power of eminent domain to specific entities, outline compensation requirements, and establish procedures for its exercise. However, communities of color and low-income neighborhoods are disproportionately affected by eminent domain, and there have been calls for reform to prevent abuse and protect property owners' rights.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Definition | The power of eminent domain allows the government to acquire private property for public use or private development. |
| Limitations | The Missouri Supreme Court has issued decisions limiting eminent domain for private gain, requiring substantial evidence of blight or social liability. |
| Compensation | Private property owners must receive just compensation if their land is taken or damaged for public use. |
| Jury Determination | Compensation is determined by a jury or board of commissioners with a minimum of three freeholders. |
| Protection for Owners | The property cannot be disturbed until compensation is paid to the owner or into court on their behalf. |
| Notification | Entities with eminent domain power must provide notice and conduct public meetings disclosing the purpose of acquiring property for certain projects, such as power generation facilities. |
| Vulnerable Communities | Eminent domain disproportionately targets communities of color and low-income neighborhoods, as residents have fewer resources to challenge condemnations. |
| Abuse of Power | Redevelopment agencies in Missouri have been criticized for using bogus blight designations to acquire private property, and the state has been urged to implement reforms. |
Explore related products
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61R-n2y0Q8L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
- The Missouri Supreme Court limits eminent domain for private gain
- The Missouri Constitution authorises eminent domain for blight clearance
- Communities of colour are targeted by eminent domain for private development
- The government can threaten eminent domain to influence negotiations
- The power of eminent domain is vested in government bodies or agencies
The Missouri Supreme Court limits eminent domain for private gain
In Missouri, eminent domain gives the government the power to take private property for public projects. In return, the government must pay the owners "just compensation", which is measured in terms of the fair market value of the property.
Eminent domain has been criticised for its abuse in Missouri, with redevelopment agencies using bogus blight designations to acquire private property for private development. This has disproportionately impacted communities of colour and those living in poverty, who rarely have the means to fight back.
Despite the Missouri legislature's failure to deliver substantial reforms, the Missouri Supreme Court has issued two decisions that limited eminent domain for private gain. In 2007, the Court rejected a taking in Centene Plaza Redevelopment Corporation. v. Mint Properties, citing a lack of substantial evidence of blight. In 2013, the Court ruled that a taking for a loop track was part of an economic development plan and not permitted under Missouri's post-Kelo reforms, further restricting the use of eminent domain.
These decisions by the Missouri Supreme Court represent a significant shift in the state's approach to eminent domain, providing some protection for citizens against the abuse of eminent domain for private gain.
Mastering Monster Constitution: Saving Throws Explained
You may want to see also
The Missouri Constitution authorises eminent domain for blight clearance
In Missouri, eminent domain gives the government the power to seize private property, even if the owner does not want to sell. This is permitted under the Fifth Amendment, but eminent domain must be for "public use", which traditionally includes projects like roads, bridges, highways, and utility lines. The government must also pay the owners "just compensation" for their property.
In 2006, the state government adopted House Bill 1944, which made several changes to the law. The new law specifies that property cannot be condemned "solely" for economic development and prevents private developers from initiating condemnations on their own behalf. However, it still allows government agencies to take private property for the use of other private parties, and the broad definition of blight means that any community could be at risk.
The Missouri legislature has been criticised for failing to deliver substantial reforms to eminent domain laws, and the state has received a C grade for its protections against eminent domain. In 2024, a bill was passed in the Missouri House of Representatives that would curtail the government's ability to take private property for wind or solar energy developments, but critics argue that it does not go far enough to protect property rights.
Workplace Harassment: Abusive Conduct and the Law
You may want to see also
Communities of colour are targeted by eminent domain for private development
The Missouri Constitution authorizes eminent domain for blight clearance, redevelopment, and acquisition of property for its purposes. While eminent domain was intended to be a narrow power, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London ruled in favor of taking private property for "economic development." This has resulted in the displacement of historic Black communities, with two-thirds of those forcibly removed being African American, who were five times more likely to be displaced.
In Missouri, redevelopment agencies have used bogus blight designations to acquire private property for private development, and communities of color are often targeted for condemnation due to their lack of political clout and financial means to fight back. This has led to the uprooting of Black families from land and homes they have owned for generations, perpetuating institutional racism and limiting access to wealth and opportunities for people of color.
For example, in 1942, the federal government, citing eminent domain, forced Black landowners in Alexandria and Arlington to sell their property to make way for the construction of the Pentagon and its surrounding roads. Large apartment communities were then built for white defense workers, further concentrating wealth in largely white communities and excluding people of color.
Similarly, in Northern Virginia, housing prices have skyrocketed, making it unaffordable for many people of color to buy homes. As a result, they are forced to settle in areas farther from work, such as Woodbridge, Dale City, and Dumfries, to own property. This pattern of displacement and exclusion has been a common occurrence across the United States, with over 2,500 urban renewal projects forcibly removing more than 1 million Americans between 1949 and 1973.
While 43 states have reformed their laws to strengthen protections against eminent domain abuse, Missouri is one of the states in need of eminent domain reform to prevent further displacement and harm to communities of color.
Constitution's Arrival: A New Era for America
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The government can threaten eminent domain to influence negotiations
The Missouri Constitution grants the government the power of eminent domain, allowing it to acquire private property for public use through condemnation. This power significantly influences negotiations as the mere threat of eminent domain can pressure property owners into selling. The government's ability to condemn property is so formidable that it can sway all discussions surrounding property acquisition.
The Missouri Constitution outlines specific procedures for the exercise of eminent domain. For instance, the government must provide just compensation to the property owner, determined by a jury or a board of commissioners. Additionally, in the case of constructing a power generation facility, the entity with eminent domain authority must conduct a public meeting to disclose the facility's purpose before making any property acquisition offers.
The Missouri Supreme Court has issued rulings to restrict the use of eminent domain for private gain. In 2007, the Court rejected a taking due to insufficient evidence of blight. Similarly, in 2013, the Court ruled against a taking for an economic development plan, aligning with Missouri's post-Kelo reforms to limit eminent domain abuse.
Despite these efforts, Missouri's eminent domain laws have faced criticism for inadequate reform. Redevelopment agencies have been accused of using bogus blight designations to seize private property for private development. This abuse disproportionately affects communities of color and low-income neighborhoods, as they often lack the political influence or financial resources to challenge the government.
The Institute for Justice has created the Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide to empower communities to fight back through grassroots activism. Their efforts have helped save thousands of homes and small businesses from condemnation or being labeled as "blighted" or "in need of redevelopment."
Juries and the Constitution: How Many Members?
You may want to see also
The power of eminent domain is vested in government bodies or agencies
The power of eminent domain is a highly contentious issue in Missouri, with calls for reform from the Institute for Justice and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the Supreme Court. Eminent domain refers to the power of the government to acquire private property for public use, provided that the property owner is compensated. While this power is intended to be used for the public good, it has been criticised for being abused to benefit private interests.
In Missouri, the power of eminent domain is vested in governmental bodies or agencies whose governing body is elected or appointed by elected officials. This includes urban redevelopment corporations operating under a redevelopment agreement with the municipality for a specific area, provided that the agreement was executed before or on December 31, 2006. Additionally, certain private entities, such as utility companies and railroads, may be granted the power of eminent domain under specific circumstances as outlined in the Missouri Revised Statutes.
The Missouri Constitution and case law provide some limitations and guidelines on the exercise of eminent domain. For example, the Constitution states that property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation, which is to be determined by a jury or board of commissioners. Case law has also played a role in shaping the understanding and application of eminent domain in Missouri, with the Missouri Supreme Court issuing decisions that limited its use for private gain.
Despite these limitations, there have been concerns about the abuse of eminent domain in Missouri, particularly in targeting communities of colour and low-income neighbourhoods for private development. The Institute for Justice has highlighted the disproportionate impact of eminent domain on these communities, as they often lack the political influence and financial resources to fight back. This has resulted in calls for substantial reforms to Missouri's eminent domain laws to better protect the rights of property owners and ensure that the power of eminent domain is used appropriately and in the public interest.
In summary, while the power of eminent domain is vested in government bodies and agencies in Missouri, there have been ongoing debates and legal challenges regarding its use and potential abuse. The state's legislature and courts have addressed some of these concerns through reforms and court decisions, but there are still calls for more comprehensive reforms to protect property owners' rights and ensure that eminent domain is used for its intended purpose of benefiting the public.
Understanding ProAir Prescriptions: 90-Day Supply Explained
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Eminent domain is the power of the government to seize private property for public use.
The Missouri Constitution states that the power of eminent domain shall only be vested in governmental bodies or agencies whose governing body is elected or appointed by elected officials. It also states that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation, which shall be ascertained by a jury or board of commissioners.
There are concerns about abuse of eminent domain in Missouri, particularly in communities of color and low-income areas. Redevelopment agencies have been accused of using bogus blight designations to acquire private property for private development.
Property owners have the right to just compensation for their property and any damages caused to the remaining property. They also have the right to an eminent domain attorney to protect their rights and ensure fair treatment under the law.
Communities can engage in grassroots activism and community organizing to save homes and businesses from condemnation or being labeled as "blighted." They can also seek legal assistance from organizations like the Institute for Justice or eminent domain attorneys.
