Flight 93 families want land seizure for 9/11 memorial

[FN1910]

I have seen the condemnation laws work both ways. When I was working with the power company I got involved with quite a few cases for the location of transmission lines. Usually they could be worked out and even some cases they would wind up in court just to get a jury to set the price. There was one case of a family that regularly abused the system. This was an "old" family that was a large landowner dating back to the revolution. For over 100 years they have held a "Democratic Stump Meeting" on their farm that anyone running for office has to show up to even think of getting elected. Needless to say they are very tight with any politician in the state.

Whenever any road or power line goes acroos their property you can expect to go to court and guess who's pocket the judge is in. When the highway department paved a road across their property they had to condemn. Then the family sued because it supposedly blocked their access to the river for shipping their goods to market by barge even though they hadn't done that in over 75 years and had no intention of doing it then. Then the power company had to put the power poles on highway rights-of-way and they sued about that. Same thing when the phone company put their lines on it. When the family needed electricity to some of their buildings they refused to let the power company put their lines on the property without going to court.

Needless to say that because this family is "well connected" they get away with abusing the system that serves to help them.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by festus

The 4th amendment deals with unlawful search and seizure of property real or tangible. I guess that one is null and void as well.

To be clear though, the power of eminent domain, which the constitution defines as making private property available for public use, is found in the fifth amendment, not the fourth.