Real Estate & Property Law

Public Interest

By Alan Ackerman

The Badger Herald

Most people would agree that taking someone's property against his will is immoral. Forcing your neighbor to sell his house, for instance — regardless of the amount offered — would be morally repugnant. After all, the essence of a fair transaction — a trade — is the consent of both buyer and seller. Since your neighbor's house belongs to him, taking his property against his will is clearly an act of theft.

If 'public interest' is to have any meaning at all, it can only mean that which is in the interest of all individuals. And this can only mean one thing: freedom. Freedom, of which property rights are an essential part, is what allows 'the public' (i.e., each individual) to pursue their interests while respecting the rights of others to do the same.

This article concludes that an acquisition for the University of Wisconsin is not a 'public interest.'  It claims that required acquisition by eminent domain is 'morally repugnant.'  A fair transaction between parties contemplates the buyer and seller entering into a voluntary transaction.  Such is not always available.  In Madison, Wisconsin, no one at the University may have determined that there is a reasonable price that the sellers are to sell at.  Likely, the Board at the University has not yet determined even a basis for fair market value.  If the two come to an agreement, the transaction may yet occur.  If not, an eminent domain proceeding will occur.  At that point, it will be up to the court system to determine the just compensation.

The opinion article published in The Badger Herald has misapplied the notion of 'public interest' as one of 100% agreement as to a decision.  This claim conflicts with the common and accepted principles of our republican democracy that the need for a public use will prevail so long as just compensation is paid in a condemnation acquisition.

Full post as published by National Eminent Domain Blog on November 16, 2009 (boomark / email).