Taking Clause

Within the United States government, private property can be taken from a private owner using eminent domain as long as the original landowner is just compensated and the property is used for projects that benefit the public. However, in many situations, property has been taken with the intention of benefiting communities economically, creation of new jobs and tax revenue, but alas projects have failed. By law the government, whether it be national, state, or local, must pay compensation to the private owner, the issue with this is that the owner only receives compensation of the value of the property, not time, effort, or the cost of relocation. The government should not be able to have the power to take property from private owners unless
This provision protects citizens from unreasonable government seizure of private property. In the past, government officials have cited the Taking Clause as justification for taking private property without landowner's consent. However, what if the property taken was sold to another private owner who was creating some kind of development that doesn’t benefit the public? Or what if the properties being seeked were only those in struggling communities? Would that violate the fourteenth
“HAIL SATAN” (DURAN 666). This neighborhood has fallen on some difficult economic times after the closure of a naval research facility in the 1990’s. City officials, NLDC, and other organizations had hoped to revitalize the dying city by promoting development. The new development plan would include housing, office space, and other buildings that would be occupied by Pfizer, Inc. Susette Kelo and six other residents had properties that they either lived in or had invested in on the development site and decided that their properties should not be taken and