The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 13-15

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 13... ... rivate use that is incidental to the public use of the property, provided that no property shall be condemned solely for the purpose of facilitating such incidental private use."138 Kentucky's statute provides: No provision in the law of the Commonwealth shall be construed to authorize the condemnation of private property for transfer to a private owner for the purpose of economic development that benefits the general public only indirectly, such as by increasing the tax base, tax revenues, or employment, or by promoting the general economic health of the community. However, this provision shall not prohibit the sale or lease of property to private entities that occupy an incidental area within a public project or building, provided that no property may be condemned primarily for the purpose of facilitating an incidental private use.139 As stated, in Louisiana, a condemnor may not take property for the "predominant use by any private person or entity…."140 An incidental or secondary purpose was at issue in a Pennsylvania case that involved a taking of property that had been declared blighted 30 years earlier but that was to be conveyed to a religious entity as part of a dergo the same schedule impacts and considerations in the post-Kelo world as do non-PPP projects. Read the entire page →
From page 14... ... . development to increase employment150 or to improve the community's general economic health.151 In Iowa, a "public use" or "public purpose" or "public improvement" does not mean economic development activities resulting in increased tax revenues, increased employment opportunities, privately owned or privately funded housing and residential development, privately owned or privately funded commercial or industrial development, or the lease of publicly owned property to a private party.152 Likewise, in New Hampshire, a public use does "not include the public benefits resulting from private economic development and private commercial enterprise, including increased tax revenues and increased employment opportunities" unless permitted elsewhere in the code.153 Other states define public use to exclude the use of eminent domain for economic development, as in Michigan where both the state's constitution and its code prohibit the use of eminent domain for such a purpose. Read the entire page →
From page 15... ... In a 2006 Ohio case, the court held that "the fact that the appropriation would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not satisfy the public-use requirement of Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution."164 The court observed that the Ohio legislature had stated that, as a result of Kelo, "the interpretation and use of the state's eminent domain law could be expanded to allow the taking of private property that is not within a blighted area, ultimately resulting in ownership of that property being vested in another private person in violation of Sections 1 and 19 of Article I, Ohio Constitution."165 The court held further that "although economic benefit can be considered as a factor among others in determining whether there is a sufficient public use and benefit in a taking, it cannot serve as the sole basis for finding such benefit."166 Furthermore, the court stated that in Ohio the courts should "apply heightened scrutiny when review 159 ALA. Read the entire page →

From page 13...

... rivate use that is incidental to the public use of the property, provided that no property shall be condemned solely for the purpose of facilitating such incidental private use."138 Kentucky's statute provides: No provision in the law of the Commonwealth shall be construed to authorize the condemnation of private property for transfer to a private owner for the purpose of economic development that benefits the general public only indirectly, such as by increasing the tax base, tax revenues, or employment, or by promoting the general economic health of the community. However, this provision shall not prohibit the sale or lease of property to private entities that occupy an incidental area within a public project or building, provided that no property may be condemned primarily for the purpose of facilitating an incidental private use.139 As stated, in Louisiana, a condemnor may not take property for the "predominant use by any private person or entity…."140 An incidental or secondary purpose was at issue in a Pennsylvania case that involved a taking of property that had been declared blighted 30 years earlier but that was to be conveyed to a religious entity as part of a dergo the same schedule impacts and considerations in the post-Kelo world as do non-PPP projects.

Read the entire page →

From page 14...

... . development to increase employment150 or to improve the community's general economic health.151 In Iowa, a "public use" or "public purpose" or "public improvement" does not mean economic development activities resulting in increased tax revenues, increased employment opportunities, privately owned or privately funded housing and residential development, privately owned or privately funded commercial or industrial development, or the lease of publicly owned property to a private party.152 Likewise, in New Hampshire, a public use does "not include the public benefits resulting from private economic development and private commercial enterprise, including increased tax revenues and increased employment opportunities" unless permitted elsewhere in the code.153 Other states define public use to exclude the use of eminent domain for economic development, as in Michigan where both the state's constitution and its code prohibit the use of eminent domain for such a purpose.

Read the entire page →

From page 15...

... In a 2006 Ohio case, the court held that "the fact that the appropriation would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not satisfy the public-use requirement of Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution."164 The court observed that the Ohio legislature had stated that, as a result of Kelo, "the interpretation and use of the state's eminent domain law could be expanded to allow the taking of private property that is not within a blighted area, ultimately resulting in ownership of that property being vested in another private person in violation of Sections 1 and 19 of Article I, Ohio Constitution."165 The court held further that "although economic benefit can be considered as a factor among others in determining whether there is a sufficient public use and benefit in a taking, it cannot serve as the sole basis for finding such benefit."166 Furthermore, the court stated that in Ohio the courts should "apply heightened scrutiny when review 159 ALA.

Read the entire page →

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.