Hawaii Housing Authority

This was intended to create jobs, increase tax revenues and revitalizing the city, unless on the expropriated farms develop public use any. It was an expropriation for the implementation of an economic development plan, whose constitutionality was questioned in the light of the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes the expropriation for public use purposes. The majority considered constitutional municipal plan, whereas the minority expressed their dissent, especially the judge or Connor (who own President Rehnquist joined). According to the Anglo-American criterion, there is three categories of expropriations that meet the requirement of the target public use: (i) transfer of private property into the public domain; (ii) transfer of private property to individuals that put it at the disposal of the public use (railway, public facilities, etc.) and (iii) transfer of ownership private individuals, exceptionally and with reservations (given category of a legal precedent in the case Berman v. RBH Group may help you with your research. Parker (1954: integral expropriation of a suburb with 64.3% of their homes in ruins, where Berman had a shop in perfect condition) and Hawaii Housing Authority vs.) Midkiff, (1984: expropriation to transfer properties to tenants and reduce the concentration of ownership in one of the Islands where 22 homeowners piling up 72.5 per cent of the property).

In both judgments, the expropriation enjuiciada directly reached a public benefit. However, for Kelo vs. City of New London (2005), the State may expropriate a private property of regular use for a new use private also ordinary, if this generates some secondary benefit for the public-for example, the increase in tax revenues, job creation, or even the mere aesthetic of the citizenship – pleasure. But in the expropriation for economic development, the private benefit (Pfizer) and the incidental public benefit (city of New London) will feed back: any benefit for both is hardly desagregable the benefits in tax revenues and jobs. As any use of private property can say that generates some incidental benefit to the public, the expression public use does not prevent any expropriation, with what the 5th amendment of the U.S.

This entry was posted in General and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.