The U.S. Constitution allows government to seize private property for public use so long as “just compensation” is given. But can a state seize land on behalf of a private corporation in the name of economic development? In 2000, Mississippi lured Nissan to build a plant in the state in part by promising to “quick take” the property of three families for the car company to use as a parking lot and access road.
Mississippi argues that as a poor state it has the right to seek the “highest and best use” of land to create jobs. Critics contend that if that’s the case, the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution means nothing because a government can always find a “better” use for someone’s private property.
The trend seems to running against the loose interpretation of eminent domain.
Source: Editorial, Mississippi Churning, Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2002.
For text (WSJ subscribers) http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB1010102220631865360.htm
For more on Property Rights http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/
RSA Comment: The expropriation debate in the United States is of particular interest to South Africans in view of the governments declared aim to expropriate or confiscate privately owned mineral rights, including the rights of traditional communities. In the draft Bills published to date there has been no mention of compensation.
Eustace Davie, Director, FMF.
FMF Policy Bulletin\8 January 2002
