Eminent domain (US), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland), compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (Canada, South Africa) in common law legal systems is the lawful power of the state to expropriate private property without the owner's consent, either for its own use or on behalf of a third party. The term eminent domain is used primarily in the United States, where the term was derived in the mid-19th century from a legal treatise written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625. The term compulsory purchase, also originating in the mid-19th Century, is used primarily in England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that follow the principles of English law. Originally, the power of eminent domain was assumed to arise from natural law as an inherent power of the sovereign.
Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale. In many jurisdictions the power of eminent domain is tempered with a right that just compensation be made for the appropriation.
Some coined the term expropriation to refer to "appropriation" under eminent domain law, and may especially be used with regard to cases where no compensation is made for the confiscated property. Examples include the 1960 Cuban expropriation of property held by U.S. citizens, following a breakdown in economic and diplomatic relations between the Eisenhower Administration and the Cuban government under Fidel Castro. U.S. nationals and corporations held vast amounts of Cuba's prime real-estate. Cuban authorities offered just compensation for US properties, as they had successfully done for Spanish, British and French properties when they nationalized private property in Cuba, for the common good. However, U.S. authorities refused, adhering to the notion that those properties are still privately owned by U.S. interests 45 years later. This is in direct contrast with recent rulings by the US Supreme Court which allows a corporation to displace a private citizen from his/her realty, if the corporate development is considered to be in the best interest of the municipality.
More on [ Eminent domain ]
Urban and Regional Planning :: Social Sciences
Constitutional Law and Civil Rights :: Legal Information
Environmental Law :: Legal Information

GAO Report on Regulatory Takings - Report to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary on the implementation of Executive Order 12630 on property rights.
Oregonians In Action - Focusing on the rights of private property owners, with links to news and cases.
Property Rights and Takings - The Institute for Local Self Government offers a simple introduction to the takings issue, and a number of legal references.
Protecting Private Property Rights from Regulatory Takings - Testimony of Roger Pilon, Senior Fellow and Director Center for Constitutional Studies Cato Institute Before the Subcommittee on Constitution, Committee on Judiciary United States House of Representatives, February 10, 1995.
Regulatory Takings after Lucas - This article from Regulation magazine discusses the effect of the Supreme Court decision, Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council, on regulatory takings.
Regulatory Takings and Proposals for Change - Report prepared by the United States Congressional Budget Office in 1998. Definitions, the status quo, discussion of compensation issues.
Swamp Rules: The End of Federal Wetland Regulation? - article by Jonathan H. Adler in Regulation magazine. [PDF format. Requires Adobe Acrobat to view.]
Takings - Policy statement from the American Planning Association.
404
The Measuring Stick of Regulatory Takings: A Biological and Cultural Analysis - published in University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitional Law
The Property Rights Issue - Analysis of regulatory takings issues, disseminated by the Center for the National Institute for the Environment. (1995)
| City of Houston Property Rights Ordinance 19-43 debunked! | |
| Next Video | |