Civic · 6 pages · 12 min

Why public use is the argument

Public use is the reason a taking must offer, and paying compensation does not by itself supply it.

I understand the following: I can download a file of this brief, and I can also read it in the library on this browser. Clearing the cache or cookies deletes the library copy. The file must be downloaded for access to be retained.

When the purchase is complete, return to the original window. It will refresh.

From the opening

Public use is the justification a government must be able to give when it compels an owner to surrender property through eminent domain. The argument is that the taking serves a public end, and without a legally sufficient end the promise to pay does not by itself authorize the coercion. The opening covers payment does not prove public use, classic public works fit more easily, and states narrowed many development takings.

The rest of the brief — the later sections and the reading notes — opens after Stripe confirms payment.

Inside

Payment does not prove public use
Classic public works fit more easily
States narrowed many development takings
Pretext remains a harder claim
Where the idea stops applying
A distinction worth keeping

Sources

Public use limitation on eminent domain
Kelo v. City of New London

01How a city prices waterCivic30 min$18 09How a power grid stays balancedCivic28 min$18 0780How a census counts and also missesCivic12 min$20

Why public use is the argument

From the opening

Inside

Sources

Also on the desk