Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Suppose the government must cut a firebreak through a forest upon private property to prevent spread of a forest fire. Or suppose the government destroys healthy livestock in a quarantine area to prevent spread of disease. These are invasive takings, but they do not fall under the per se rule described in a previous section.
In the United States, eminent domain is the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring just compensation to be given to the original owner. It can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are ...
As of 2020, the federal government owns roughly 640 million acres of land, the majority of which is concentrated in the Western US and Alaska. [1] Privatization of public land involves the selling or auctioning of public lands to the private sector. The private sector can refer to private individuals, industry, or corporations. [citation needed]
Over time, (slowly, but surely) all private property will cease to exist as a case could always be made by others that your property would better serve the public if it was not yours, but rather ...
In federal law, Congress can take private property directly (without recourse to the courts) by passing an Act transferring title of the subject property directly to the government. In such cases, the property owner seeking compensation must sue the United States for compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
As entirely private companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may themselves get more creative in drafting new loan programs. Perhaps we’ll see more loan terms offered, from 20- and 25-year loans up ...
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Opponents of a controversial South African land expropriation bill are calling the legislation a threat to private ownership after it was endorsed by the country's president.