The transfer of private property from one person to another even if one has been duly compensated has for decades been a thorny issue. This is compounded by the fact that the state may transfer ownership of property from one private party to another by the application of the controversial term “use by the public”. In the first case in this case study, “the Supreme Court granted a permanent restraining order by prohibiting the taking of part of the property and denying the plaintiffs relief to the part of property” (Legal environment of business, 1999). The strong arguments put forward by the plaintiffs are that they had lived in their properties for more than two decades and had made expansive changes to the properties. The Supreme Court of California reversed the case thereby giving the state all the powers to take all the condemned land. According to Associate Justice John Stevens, there appear two propositions that are clear in this case. First, the state has no constitutional powers to transfer the ownership of property from one private party to another while in the same argument; the state may transfer property from one private party to public use. The controversy, in this case, is whether the city’s plan fits the definition of “public use”. Comparing this case to Berman v. Parker (1954), there is no way in which only part of a condemned land may be put into public use. Legal environment of business (1999) reveals that the “defendants in this case study contend that using eminent domain for economic development impermissibly blurs the boundary between public and private takings”. According to this case, while the state at in most instances may intend to make use of a property public, it is very complex to understand the possibility of private interests in the whole process. The complexity, of this case, is often further complicated by the ambiguous use of the term “public use” or in instances where only a fraction of the acquired property is put to public use. This means that the remaining fraction of this property is again diverted back to private ownership. The term “public use” must therefore be properly defined and ascertained. The plaintiffs lost the case to the city of San Francisco.
According to the free dictionary (2009), “a petitioner refers to the party that presents a formal and written application to court of law in request to action on a dispute or civil matter”. “A defendant is the party sued in a civil lawsuit or the party charged with a crime in a criminal prosecution” (the free dictionary, 2009). Determining the petitioners, in this case, involves an analysis of the whole case. In the first case presented to the San Francisco Supreme Court, the City of San Francisco was the defendant while the petitioners were the nine landowners comprising of Mr. Robinson, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Beardsley, Pamela Martin, and the rest. In the appeal, both parties were petitioners and defendants in that they both appealed to the results of the first case.
“The justifications put forward by the city of Francisco involves an economic development plan that it believes will not only be of benefits to the community but will also create new jobs and increase revenue” (Legal environment of business, 1999). To make their case successful, they have made extensive use of the state statute that gives power for use of the eminent domain in the promotion of economic development. “eminent domain for economic development impermissibly blurs the boundary between public and private takings” (Legal environment of business, 1999). This constitutionally hands over the dispute advantage to the defendants in this case study. This refers to the power given by the government to seize private property and convert it to public use. In condensed terms, the government’s insistence on property acquisition in the name of “public use” will end up benefitting individual private parties. The case study further reveals that “Because the plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirements of the Fifth Amendment” (Legal environment of business, 1999). The petitioner’s contention remains that they had lived in their properties for more than two decades and had made expansive changes to the properties.
The answer to the question on whether “a city violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city’s bad economy” (Legal environment of business, 1999) is positive in that the Fifth Amendment seeks to defend the private party. The fifth Amendment as demonstrated in this case study reveals that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”(Legal environment of business, 1999). The transfer of property from one private party to the other does not follow due process of the law even if just compensation is done. Furthermore, the failure to regulate the use of the property to public utilization violates the Fifth Amendment. “The taking of private property by a public corporation or a state agency for transfer to a private entity is not a public use unless the proposed use of the property is invested with public attributes sufficient to fairly deem the entity’s activity governmental”(Onecle, 2008).
The court has granted an order to the city of Francisco to take all the condemned land and put it to public use basing its judgment on the provisions of the Fifth Amendment. This order means that the plaintiffs were compensated and had to look for alternative property elsewhere. The defendant’s justification of economic development and increased revenue gives them an upper hand in this case. Based on the above reasons, the reaction to the order is explosive, with every legal analyst denouncing the order as misplaced and a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The order fails to take into notice the sensitivity of dealing with the process of forcefully ejecting one from the home known to him. Associate Justice John Stevens in the Legal environment of business (1999) denounces the order that “it is impractical to say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of community redevelopment projects”. The reaction is undoubtedly the same. Thomas as quoted in Legal environment of business (1999) also states very clearly that “I cannot agree, if such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution”. He further adds in the same tone that “he does not believe that the Supreme Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution” (Legal environment of business, 1999). I hold the view after this case study that there is a need to further carry out amendments on the acquisition of private property for public use and provide a strict definition of the term “public use”. The legal environment writer concludes in the case study that he would reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court. All these demonstrate the number of negative sentiments directed at the judgment.
References
Onecle. (2008). Acquisition of Property by State Agencies And Public Corporations (Excerpt) Act 149 of 1911. Web.
The free dictionary (2009). Petitioner. Web.