Eminent Domain for Private Use | A Jury Fights Back

Eminent Domain can be used for many things. Most of the time it is used for actual needs of the local, state, or federal government. Such public uses include sewers, government buildings (warehouses, maintenance buildings, courthouses, schools, etc.), roads, electric lines, gas lines, wildlife refuges. But the Supreme Court in a relatively recent court decision determined that public use included taking property for economic development purposes, which often means leasing acquired ground out to private developers who turn it into business parks, malls, speedways, water parks, and any other thing that will make money.

When that case was decided, many states immediately changed their laws to diminish the chances that private land would be taken for economic development purposes (this does not mean that "blighted" land cannot be taken by government entities - there is a time and place for razing old buildings). Some place still allow it, although they are feeling the consequences of trying to take property for what appears to the public to be a private use.

A perfect example of this is in Jacksonville Florida, where a man recently had eminent domain exercised against him so the local governing authority could turn the land over for private development. Tom Scholl bought some ocean front property several years ago for 8 million dollars to use for a coal and cargo business. Shortly after that, Jaxport decided they would condemn the ground to lease it to private developers. They offered Scholl his 8 million dollars and he declined.

Eminent domain proceedings ensued and a jury returned a verdict of 67 million dollars for just compensation to Mr. Scholl. As would be expected, Jaxport is outraged by this and has threatened to ask for a new trial.

What is the moral behind all of this? Don't try to take property via eminent domain for economic development. It is open season for the landowner's eminent domain attorney to point out again and again, especially in this case, that the current property owner wants to use the land for the exact purpose the city wants to use it for, only the city doesn't get the money when they don't own the property. It makes the city look like a bully, and it really fattens the wallet of the property owner.

Was the property worth 67 million? Probably not. But that is the chance you take as a governing body against a landowner with an experience eminent domain attorney. You take the chance of being burned.

Eminent Domain