Talk:Eminent domain

message: This article needs a global focus. It appears to me that eminent domain and expropriation are synonyms, the former term being used in the USA and the latter term used outside the USA. Some dictionaries have only the latter term. Several european languages have the term expropriation. Can anybody please clarify. Afog (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Eminent Domain is used in the US but I think they should be merged.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEMZ1995 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with expropriation? 

message: Why no mention of the infamous "Valencia Land Grab" - a notorious practice in Spain where private land is effectively stolen by the government for building roads etc, with no compensation at all?
It's not covered in depth and in a neutral perspective anywhere I can find, and Wikipedia seems to be the ideal place for such an unbiased collection of facts to be compiled.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.130.51 (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valencia Land Grab 

message: Looking at this article, I notice that the United States has a large amount of detail compared to the other countries. Could we expand the other countries? Or shrink the United States? Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 12:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A split is definitely overdue. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

text: – Fayenatic London 22:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Bias 

message: I wanted to post this NJ case for consideration in the article.  The case is similar to Kelo, except the city also issued eminent domain ordinances to seize the Board of Education building in order to build townhouses on the property.  The court found in favor of the city and its plans to create condos in the area; the Board of Education was forced to find new property.  In the court decision, the justice noted that "relocation to another office will inevitably involve some disruption, [but] that assertion could be made by any party whose property is taken through eminent domain."
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2006/a1216-04-opn.html 
This is the only US case I know of where a public building was seized to create condos in an eminent domain court case.  
Thanks to whoever can get this into the article.
Thelema418 (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Eminent Domain applied to public land to create condos 

message: An anonymous submitter made a substantive addition which appears off to me.  It seems to be rather incoherent, but made in good faith; and the incoherence might just be legalese I'm not familiar with. Reverting it as useless or vandalism seems extreme to me, maybe someone with knowledge of the subject should review the addition to see if it could be salvaged. 80.94.55.51 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Smells like crankery. It obviously has nothing to do with an executive order. I've boldly reverted it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sep 30 2012 addition to Bush Executive Order 

message: This article lists compulsory purchase as one of the alternate titles of for the topic. But there is still a separate article under that name specifically addressing the English laws. Obviously if one is going to say the terms refer to the same thing there is no reason for two articles.
Anticipating concerns some may have, yes, one can argue that there are important differences between the U.S. law and English law. But the question is "Do those differences merit separate articles or is it better (and clearer) to discuss those as facets of the same topic in the same article?" Despite the differences, they are ultimately the same general legal principle and it is actually more educationally useful to have one article that elucidates the similarities and differences across all of the national boundaries.
Chiming in on a previous discussion that hasn't closed, the same general argument applies to merging expropriation with this one. The dictionary, for example, defines expropriation as being the same principle as eminent domain.
*But they're articles at different levels of focus.  By analogy: Wikipedia has, and should have, separate articles on arthropod, arachnid, spider and tarantula, and I'm sure you can see why we have that.  A spider is a kind of arthropod but we don't merge spider into arthropod.  Well, by the same analogy, compulsory purchase in England and Wales is a kind of eminent domain, but we don't merge the two, because it's right that there should be a generic article and specific ones.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge ''Compulsory purchase'' 

message: The link supporting the sentences, "In 1832 the Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to allow a mill owner to expand his dam and operations by flooding an upstream neighbor. The court opinion stated that a public use does not have to mean public occupation of the land; it can mean a public benefit.[9]'" is dead. In searching for another source with which to replace the citation, I found a number of sources, main;y ones with no interest in NPOV, repeating this statement, but none that seems useful to be cited as a secondary source. As I poked around I found that the quoted sentences are also inaccurate. They imply that this was a case before the United States Supreme Court,but in fact this was a decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The primary document begins on p. 467 in https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=KQgQAAAAYAAJ . However, as this seems to me to be a primary source, it can't be used. I suppose it is also the result of my personal research.
Absent a good secondary source, I am removing those sentences. I am pretty much a novice at editing, and if what I have done is incorrect I will certainly accept their restoration. A note of explanation would be nice, though, so I can learn from the experience.
Dgndenver (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1832 Supreme Court ruling 

message: The paragraph on "Expropriation" in Sweden seems to be the result of translating an idiomatic Swedish passage into an English which is decidedly not idiomatic.  For example, although I can follow the general meaning fairly closely, the word order of some clauses is awkward and unusual.  So the English expression needs cleaning up.
More importantly, I'm not sure this passage meets the NPOV - Neutral Point Of View - criterion for Wikipedia, as it makes several vague allegations of bribery and political corruption, not all backed by citations.  I think we should remove those allegations until somebody can reinstate them with suitable evidence.
I haven't time for such a rewrite, but it does need doing.  yoyo (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweden 

message: Dr. Miceli has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Miceli has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Thomas J. Miceli, 2014. "The Cost of Kelo: Are Property Taxes a Form of Public Use?," Working papers 2014-35, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Miceli's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Eminent domain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090411044012/http://www.austlii.edu.au:80/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423143837/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/laa192/s43.html to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/laa192/s43.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721180417/http://openarchive.in/judis/1119.htm to http://openarchive.in/judis/1119.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following text is moved from the hatnote to shorten the hatnote: Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: Requisition redirects here, yet is not discussed at all.  Though sharing the high-level concept, at least in ordinary use in Britain, it is not synonymous with Compulsory Purchase. It is commonly used where no transfer of ownership is involved, but power is exercised over the use of the property, whether fixed or moveable, for a period, and usually for compensation.  For example, many British-owned ships were requisitioned by the Government during WW1 & 2 and operated by military or civil organs of the state, with hire being paid and provisions for return fit for continued commercial use. The ship's registered ownership remained the same but the owner lost the power to operate or sell the asset in his own interests. I think the same applied to factories and other buildings where the state "re-purposed" property (for example for munitions production, hospitals or military bases). Whether "requisition" is used in American English in the same way, I do not know (well, I was not familiar with the term "eminent domain" until an hour ago). Davidships (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requisition 

message: The coverage of Eminent domain in the UK focus almost entirely on compulsory purchase of land, but the legal basis expands far beyond that. It was used extensive in WW2 by the Ministry of Supply and the power also exists in ships taken up from trade. 83.100.188.53 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eminent domain in the UK 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Requisition. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 27#Requisition until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Talk 02:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Requisition" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Does anybody know of a court case or anything else showing this is LEGAL to do?
Because else it's racist!
--2001:16B8:57BF:8600:F8C8:7029:26F9:9127 (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this legal in modern Germany or would this be racist?!