A Proposal For New Eminent Domain Laws

A Proposal for New Eminent Domain Laws

The Cottonwood Christian Center owns a bit of land in Cypress, a city in Orange County California. They purchased the land in 1999 to build a new church because their church was old and breaking down and they needed more room to build a spiritual home, which would house over 4,000 families (republic). Then Costco wanted the land and just three years later they got it. Its not clear whether Costco asked the city if they could move in or if the city asked Costco to move in, but what is clear is that on May 28, 2002 the Cypress City Council voted four to zero to enact the laws of eminent domain to take the land from the Cottonwood Christian Center and then sell it to Costco for a cheaper price (republic). And now the city stands to benefit from about $400,000 of tax revenue a year. The eighteen-acre property was appraised at $17.9 million dollars, but the city only paid "just compensation" for the property, which was determined, by the city, to be $14 million dollars. Costco President and CEO Jim Sinegal said, "Had we been asked, we could have pointed out that we are not a party to any litigation, and do not have a contract to buy any land in Cypress, nor will we have until a judge or the parties themselves resolve their dispute" (ocregistar). Meaning that there was already an existing problem between the city and the Cottonwood Christian Center and that Costco had nothing to do with the support of using the eminent domain laws. And that Costco will buy the land from the city after this issue has been worked out. Now Costco owns the land and the church and it's 4,000 residents have to find a new area to move, which will undoubtedly cost more than $14 million dollars, especially if they plan to stay in Orange County.

This situation happens all the time in America. Thousands of businesses have abused the laws of eminent domain, using them to obtain privately owned land. And even more residents and small business owners have had their property deceitfully taken from them. Eminent domain laws were created to make sure that privately owned land does not dislocate public progress. But, it seems that bigger businesses have found a flaw in its structure. Eminent domain law was first written in the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution. It reads,

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation (U.S. Constitution).

But, eminent domain laws are not defined until they are written for each state and the laws vary from state to state. California eminent domain laws state, "Government agencies have the power to acquire property for "public use" so long as the government pays "just compensation." Recognized public uses for which the power of eminent domain may be used include, among other things, schools, parks, roads, highways, subways, fire and police stations, public buildings, and the elimination of blight through redevelopment" (eminentdomainlaws). Also, "The project need not be actually open to the public to constitute a public use. Instead, generally only a public benefit is required" (eminentdomainlaws).

These loose ended terms like "public use", "just compensation", and "public benefit" generate a lot of unhappy residents and small business owners and, as in the case described above, churches. If these residents and small businesses want to stay where they are then they have to try and fight the law. But, they can not fight against the law when big businesses do their part, as ruled by a judge in court, to provide a public benefit and just compensation. So what qualifies as a "public use" and a "public benefit"? And what is "just compensation"? Here are some examples of places of "public use". Its common knowledge that places like schools, parks, freeways, hospitals etc. are publicly used, but what about a retail store? A retail store is certainly opened to the public. But does the public "use" the store or is the store simply providing goods, or is it both? So what about hospitals? Hospitals are certainly something that could be considered "public", but does it not matter if a hospital is privately owned, the public still uses it, right? Or what about Costco? The "public" obviously uses Costco. Costco is providing variety of goods and people are using Costco to limit their shopping trips by buying several different kinds of goods in one place. But people don't "use" Costco in the same sense that they "use" a freeway, a park, or a school. And all of the "public uses" listed above in the California eminent domain laws are owned by the city or the state. California eminent domain laws also state, "The project need not be actually open to the public to constitute a public use. Instead, generally only a public benefit is required" (laws). Well now lets try and define "public benefit". There are very few people that would argue that hospitals do not benefit the public. And places like prisons, although sometimes privately owned and are not publicly used, do benefit the public by providing a place to keep criminals. But the argument for Costco is that residential neighborhoods and churches don't provide the goods, services, and jobs that the economy would benefit from that Costco can provide. Now that sounds good, doesn't it? But, what if there was a shopping center that had a series of small privately owned businesses like a bowling alley, a barbershop, a convenience store, etc. and a business like Costco came along and noticed that the center was in a really spectacular location. Then Costco would ask the local state or city official to use eminent domain to obtain this land forcibly so that they could build a Costco store. Then the only benefit would be to Costco and to the city or state, assuming that Costco would generate more tax revenue then the smaller businesses. Just Five years ago in Lancaster, California Costco did just this. In 2000 the owner of a 99 Cents Only store, Dave Gold, decided that he would move into an empty building next to Costco (ocregister). Well, the owner of the Costco didn't want the 99 Cents Only store next to him and demanded that the city use eminent

...