A lot of families’ sentimental memories have been taken from them and destroyed just because the government wants to build a communal institution that is not even necessary a lot of the time. Even though a good majority of private property owners take their case to court, they do not win their case most of time. Most courts uphold the takings. In Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court redefined the “Takings Clause”. Previously, the Takings Clause asserted that any property could be confiscated for public use. However, in the Berman case, this was redefined. The court ruled that any property could be taken for not only for “public use”, but also for “public purpose”. The court did not only redefine the Takings Clause, but they also ruled that the US government was allowed to transfer properties between two private properties as long as the other private party is involved in a redevelopment plan that has a communal purpose. With past and future lawsuits, the government’s security in eminent domain may not be as
A lot of families’ sentimental memories have been taken from them and destroyed just because the government wants to build a communal institution that is not even necessary a lot of the time. Even though a good majority of private property owners take their case to court, they do not win their case most of time. Most courts uphold the takings. In Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court redefined the “Takings Clause”. Previously, the Takings Clause asserted that any property could be confiscated for public use. However, in the Berman case, this was redefined. The court ruled that any property could be taken for not only for “public use”, but also for “public purpose”. The court did not only redefine the Takings Clause, but they also ruled that the US government was allowed to transfer properties between two private properties as long as the other private party is involved in a redevelopment plan that has a communal purpose. With past and future lawsuits, the government’s security in eminent domain may not be as