Metro City exercises its power of eminent domain to acquire land for a public pr
ID: 2739062 • Letter: M
Question
Metro City exercises its power of eminent domain to acquire land for a public project, including part of a public transit rail system and a traffic bypass. Metro City relocates more than 10,000 residents from the land and destroys their homes to begin the project. Nathan’s Deli is adjacent to the project. Nathan’s loses most of its business when the residents are moved. Nathan’s files a suit against Metro City, alleging that its acquisition of the land resulted in a taking of the deli’s property interest, entitling it to compensation. What is a taking? What might Nathan’s claim is its “property interest” to support this allegation? What is the court likely to rule? Why?
Explanation / Answer
A taking comes into picture when the owner of the property is completely deprived towards use or possession of his property due to the action of the government. The claim can be made by Nathan with reference to the property interest that the area is expected to remain residential. Thus if the area still continued to be residential he woul have operated in a profitable manner. The argument that Nathan can make is regarding the customer base which is expected to remain constant due to his assumption that the area will be in use in a similar way as it was in the past.
The court ruling most likely to state that the acquisition of the land by metro city near Nathan did not resulted in taking pertaining to property interest of deli because metro city has neither taken the right to use the property nor it has taken possession of the Nathan’s property and the expectation that the nearby area will always remain residential is not correct and appropriate. Hence, no compensation will be provided for the changes occurring in the nearby area as Nathan does not hold any right over the nearby area to always remain residential.