You know those newly developed areas on the outskirts of town with the shiny new houses and names like “Ellenbrook” and “Rosebanks” - suppose a city started one of those next to a relatively old area of town and then decided it wanted to expand it - would it have the power to take the land the old houses stand on through compulsory acquisition?
Depends on the state. But if the state allows it and the city has a vaguely defined ‘public purpose’ the Supreme Court said that its ok.
Okay. And would this be America you’re talking about?
In the UK - not for private housing, no. There’s stronger powers of compulsory purchase for public developments and for transport, and often there’s a controversial decision to be made between the new development and preservation of existing buildings. For example, the planned expansion of Heathrow and Stansted airports both entail destroying listed medieval buildings.
Post-war development was more comprehensive - powers were given for compulsory purchase of any ‘war damaged’ property, which meant any damage (even a broken window), and therefore meant that local authorities were able to bulldoze huge sections of town centres. The often-dreadful redeveloped town centres are one good reason people are now apprehensive about any major development of this sort.
Powers differ where buildings are derelict, land unused, etc., and there’s some moves to increase these powers in order to make better use of urban land and to remove some notorious sections of housing in some northern cities, where whole streets are nearly deserted.
A recent Supreme Court decision declared that economic development is acceptable as a “public use” for emminent domain seizures. This means that state and local governments can force you to sell your land for pretty much any reason they want. It used to be that your neighborhood had to be blighted (and people would argue over whether or not this was true) but now the city just has to say “we think that this new development will generate more tax revenue than your old working-class neighborhood does,” and the people who live in that neighborhood have to start packing their bags and looking for a new place to live.
In Germany - definitely not for private housing. Compulsory purchase is possible for public infrastructure projects (such as roads, railway lines, airport runways, sometimes municipial cemetaries etc.) but it won’t make it through the administrative courts unless preceded by a public planning enquiry that shows strong necessity and no viable alternative. Often property owners bring suit against the compulsory purchase essentially to make the municipiality make a higher offer for voluntary purchase.
The city-state of Hamburg tried to go by the compulsory purchase route to get land for a expansion of an industrial site deemed vital to the city’s economic development (expansion of an Airbus factory’s runway for the A380 project) but the last court decision was that the interests of a private enterprise (however vital to the state’s economy) do not constitute a public interest entitling the state to exercise compulsory purchase. The case is still not finally decided AFAIK so that’s probably about the maximum extent to which compulsory purchase powers can be stretched.
Int he United States, usually private developers are responsible for suburban subdiisions; acquiring the land, subdividing it into building lots, open space and public right-of-way, and selling the lots to builders.
Sounds like you’re describing infill development. Although this doesn’t happen often, like others said, in the US adjacent property could be acquired under the eminent domain process, although the property owners must be reimbursed for the fair market value of their houses and underlying land.
I think you’re correct regarding private housing, but there’s no rule saying that plans of private enterprises can principally never constitute sufficient public interest for compulsory purchase/expropriation. In 1987, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that expropriation to the benefit of Daimler-Benz, which wanted to construct a test circuit for its cars was unconstitutional, but the decision explicitly mentioned that exporpriatipon for the benefit of an enterprise can be OK under certain circrumstances: Sufficient public interest. This is certainly less probable if the land is about to be given to a private company, but it’s not impossible by principle.
So in America, could they ever possibly take your land, give you your money, demolish your house, build a new house and offer to sell you the new house and land? Or is that too “Wtf is the point of that?”
Even though the courts interpretation of public use is more expansive that it had been in the past, its not quite that simple. The OP posed a question about a situation where they build a housing development on the edge of a city and then decide to expand it. Perhaps this is a comprehensive plan to improve the tax base of the city, whatever.
If the court is to be taken at its word though, you still couldn’t walk in and take E-Diddy’s house only to hand the land over to FlyingRamenMonster either to live in or tear down and rebuild. There still has to be some overarching development goal involved. Now if you took my house and all those of my neighbors in order to build a lifestyle center complete with a mall, hotel, golf course, and apartments, that’s acceptable.
The Court also didn’t decide that such activity is always acceptable anywhere. They elected to turn the judgment over to the states. In Michigan where the State Supreme Court outlawed such activity, its not ok. In Pennsylvania, where the Supreme Court couldn’t give a rat’s patootie as long as the legislature doesn’t cut the justices expense accounts, its ok to take property in such a fashion.
As a simplified summary: in general in Australia the Commonwealth government and the state governments can compulsorily acquire real property if appropriately provided for under statute.
The Commonwealth **must ** pay fair compensation. This is a constitutional requirement under section 51(xxxi) which states: “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to…the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws”.
In NSW there is no constitutional requirement for the payment of fair compensation, although there is a statutory requirement under s37 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 which states: “an owner of an interest in land which is divested, extinguished or diminished by an acquisition notice is entitled to be paid compensation in accordance with this Part by the authority of the State which acquired the land”. I presume that similar Acts are in force in the other states.
Okay, but I guess what I’m asking is: could they redevelop an area and offer to sell a piece of land back to you as part of the compensation deal? Is that done, ever?