Should Cities Have The Right of Eminent Domain?

Cities have the right of eminent domain, which is the right to take privately owned property for a public use if the owner of that property is paid fair value for the property. Over the years, what constitutes "public use" has become a problem. At first, public use meant taking property and using it to build schools or roads or fire stations. More recently, public use has come to include situations where a city uses eminent domain to take private property and then sells that property to some other private party who will use the property for a new and better use.

Although I believe cities should have the right to make cities better IF that "public use" results in eminent domain being used for the benefit of the public. However, it should not be used as a tool to benefit developers or commercial interest, regardless of the financial incentive to the city. Developers or commercial business who wish to purchase property should do so on the open market system, that currently exists. For it is unlikely that if the developer is unable to purchase the property on the open market, it is also unlikely that the landowners will truly be offered the fair value of the property through condemnation proceedings. Moreover, it is also unlikely that using eminent domain for the purpose of selling to a private property will result in any kind of real benefit to the community as a whole, and therefore should not be used for such purposes.

Having said that, I do agree that using eminent domain for "public use" should be used for its intended purpose of creating roads, highways, schools and fire stations, etc. which truly do benefit the public; when all other courses of actions have failed. However, that decision should not rest solely with city planners, but with the voters of that community. For it is easy for city governments to abuse eminent domain in the name of, so called, "public use".