|
It used to be that the government was relatively self-sufficient. For that reason, greed was never really an issue. Now, the government has two motivations to seize property; to create a more profitable tax base, and because developers will bribe the government to do what they want. (Is "bribe" too strong a word, or not strong enough?) The term "public use" in the fifth amendment needs a closer analysis. Private interests seem to be increasingly mistaken for public interests. A great part of the public in many cases is the people these seizures displace. How do you justify development that is supposed to benefit a population that doesn't exist yet, and won't exist until after the development is complete? By benefiting future generations? Perhaps, but by tearing down their childhood homes? There's a lot of factors to weigh.
Commercial interests are increasingly controlling the government. The government only has a need for very little money, but it's found plenty of excuses. Give 'em an inch, and they'll take an acre.
Honestly though, I'm not aware of any cases that were truly outlandish. Sometimes people are very generously compensated and are happy to move. I agree that if it happened to me, I'd complain a great deal, but this just doesn't seem to be a pervasive problem. I've heard this issue before, but ultimately the vocal minority seems to be an extremely small minority and exceptionally whiny.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
|