Eminent Domain

Over the years, the Indian people who live in America have come to view property rights concept differently as from their American counterparts. The United States has frequently structured the taking of Indian lands on the basis of development of these lands by other developers. However, it is evident that the topic of eminent domain is hardly discussed when the land resources are abundant. However, they are more dominant when the resources are scarce and when competing for interest yields up on a particular land hence resulting in a hierarchy of preferred land uses on the land.

There have been so many arguments in regards to the eminent domain as people feel that the private investors are taking advantage of this law so as to grow rich and meet their long-term goals while the long-term residents who have grown to know these private lands as theirs since generations are displaced to new places. To some extent, these arguments are quite true but they are not entirely justifiable. Losing a property that you value so much to the government through the power of the eminent domain is always very painful (Bird, 2010). However, it is quite important to understand that though the government often makes a fair compensation to these private lands, people are often not happy or rather satisfied with this compensation as no amount of money can equate the value or the feeling that they have on their private lands. However, the main argument from the lawmakers is that eminent domain can only be exercised when the public good is the central reason. This is to mean that the government can only ask people to leave their lands only if they want to facilitate an economic development as they argue that these economic developments will result to rising of tax revenues, raising job opportunities and revitalizing neighborhoods.

Eminent domain is an authoritative economic development tool that is used cautiously and it helps cities in creating job opportunities, growing businesses and strengthening their neighborhoods. It is for this reason that the government is acting in favor of developers rather than its citizens. The courts approve of anything that is benefiting the public as a public use. Therefore it is legal for the government to displace the Indian farmers from their land as they regard developers’ intention on investing in gambling business on the Indian land would be for the greater good (Bird, 2010). Though the town has been struggling economically especially with the increasing demands for taxes and revenue so as to und the government’s operations, economists would argue that this is the right direction to undertake. However, it is very unfair that the Indian land is the one to be used for this activity while there are other alternative lands that could be used for the same purpose (Leeds, 2005). This is a clear demonstration of the prejudice that is bestowed upon our societies. It is true that something needs to be done so as to ensure economic stability in the Indian land but displacing the people and bring in new investors in the land would not help to solve the problem so much as the company that is being developed has no value on the residents of that place. Compensating them will not be enough for them as their value for the land outweighs the compensation. It is unethical for the developers to want the Indians land but still not consider them for employment. This is to mean that most of the revenue would still go back to Las Vegas from where the company developers and employees are outsourced (Leeds, 2005).

However, there should be more restrictions on the use of economic development. It is just unfair to force people to sell their land simply because other people want to make money from the same land. In this case, for example, using the eminent domain is just an abuse of power. This is because the developers in question, in this case, are selfish and are not looking at the general public good (Bird, 2010). They are planning on investing in the Indian land but still, they are outsourcing their employees from their foreign countries rather than employing the Indian people who have sacrificed their land for their sake. Though the company will increase economic development through tax returns but the issue here is they are not benefiting the community which has hosted them. Therefore, the public good, in this case, is not best served as it is just serving a few indirectly through tax revenue and still it is sacrificing the happiness of the few whose lands are to be taken. Property rights are personal rights and hence property ownership is clear from a personal interest in being free from the government interferences. Depriving of personal property is, therefore, one of the most drastic actions that a government can take against an individual (Bird, 2010).

It is fundamentally wrong and against the constitution, for the government to forcefully take land from one person and hand over to another group of people simply because they think that the developer in question will make more productivity out of the land as compared to the original owner. What the government forgets is that the more secure people feel in their lands, the more they will offer their efforts in creating and improving the productivity of the land and it is through these greater efforts that the people are able to realize wealth in the society. Leaving the Indian farmers to stay within their lands will allow them to find better ways of farming and this will ultimately result in their contribution to the economy of the nation. Farming will allow them to create jobs which they will use to employ the people from their community and hence this will reduce the college dropouts and hence increase wealth gaining in the society hence enhancing the well being of all people (Bird, 2010).

There is need to control tightly the power of eminent domain. In this case, the government would only have the power to seize land only under extraordinary and compelling situations. Developers ought to, therefore, submit ample and convincing evidence demonstrating their absolute necessity for the land taking. The public use of the land in question ought to be clear and unambiguous. This would, therefore, reduce abuses on private properties and this will enhance the owners to fully resist the government interferences. I, therefore, stand against the bill to evacuate the Indians despite giving them a fair compensation for the motivation behind this development is inconsiderate. The Indians has a right to remain on their lands for as long as they want without being interfered by any institution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Bird, R. C. (2010). Reviving necessity in eminent domain. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 33, 239.

Leeds, S. L. (2005). By Eminent Domain or Some Other Name: A Tribal Perspective on Taking Land. Tulsa L. Rev., 41, 51.