The legislation about property and expropriation are dealt with in the Constitution of Japan, whereas the issue of compensation is the object of the 1951 Land Expropriation Law (hereafter LEL), enacted under article 29, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, as a general frame of reference regarding “compulsory land acquisition for the public use” (Lum, 2007: 461). 2.2.1 The Constitution of Japan The issue of expropriation is dealt with in article 29, paragraph 3 of the Japanese Constitution: Art. 29: The right to own or to hold property is inviolable. Property rights shall be defined by law, in conformity with the public welfare. Private property may be taken for public use upon just compensation therefor. The formulation of article 29 of the …show more content…
Similarly, both Constitution allow expropriation “in the public interest” (Constitution of the PRC) or “for public use” (Constitution of Japan), provided that compensation is delivered. According to the Japanese constitutional text, compensation must be “just” (art. 29); nevertheless, no further specification about how it must be computed are provided. 2.2.1 The Land Expropriation Act The issue of expropriation of land for the public use is developed in the Land Expropriation Act or Land Expropriation Law (LEL) of 1951, whose primary intent is to “balance the promotion of public benefits and protection of public rights” (Lum, 2007: 462). In comparison with the Chinese procedure, a new element is introduced: an expropriation, in order to be lawful and in the public interest, must be declared as such by the Japanese Minister of Construction (Lum, 2007: 461). Even though the LEL provides clear guidelines, these are often overlooked in favor of a mediation process involving the project developer, landowner and other interested parties; only in case an agreement is not reached, the LEL provisions are recurred to (Lum, 2007: 462). This sheds light on a feature of East Asian systems in general: the primacy of mediation over …show more content…
Therefore, they were compelled to search for alternative housing solutions far away from the city center, where rents are more affordable. Moving away from the neighborhood of residence determined a significant depletion in the living condition of the affected people who were forced to move far away from jobs, schools, healthcare facilities and to bear longer commutes to reach their place of employment (COHRE, 2007: 14). 3.2 Compensation in Japan The requirement of “just compensation” is codified in the Japanese Constitution (Constitution of Japan, Art. 29, paragraph 3); similarly to the Chinese case, no further explanation on the meaning of “just” is provided. Due to the Japanese preference to mediation and negotiation between parties over court litigation, achieving consensus between the interested parties is deemed to be a condicio sine qua non (can I write it or it sounds exaggerate?) for any decision concerning property (Porter and McAllin, 2003: 599-607) In Japan, the doctrine of eminent domain is seldom recurred to, as it emerges from the very few number of reported eminent domain cases (Port and McAllin, 2003: 607). The Japanese executive rather opts for achieving a consensus by means of a mediation process carried out between parties (Lum,
On the date August 2nd 2005, regarding the court case: Mount Laurel Township vs. MiPro Homes L.L.C., the Appellate Division of Superior Court reversed the ruling of a trial Court. The trial court entered an injunction – preventing actions against MiPro Home’s 16.3-acre parcel and dismissing Mount Laurel’s case. The ruling by the Appellate Division of Superior Court was later affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme court, and the United States Supreme Court. The Appellate Division adjudicated that Mount Laurel Township had not improperly exercised eminent domain in condemning the 16.3-acre parcel. Was Mount Laurel justified in confiscating private land because the municipality did not want a 23 single-home development on the MiPro site, and would
Martin’s afford to speak to the city attorney and to reason with him failed. The attorney informed Martin, since it was being taken by eminent domain there is nothing he could do to help him from the city taking his property. He was assured the city would pay fair market value for the property. The property is going to be part of the plan to expand to build a new resort which would bring businesses and jobs to the community. We would advice Martin to take the money the city is offering for his property as under the eminent domain the city would win the court case.
One of the owners being forced from his property stated, “If the use of the property was going to a hospital or school we wouldn’t love to leave our home, but we would understand. But the idea that they’re taking peoples homes to bestow a benefit on a developer, which is the purpose of these takings isn’t right”(Fox on Atlantic Yards). The Atlantic yard homeowners are being forced off the property to build multiple projects including new basketball complex and other buildings on the property. Libertarians would once again agree that no one should be forced from property that belongs to them, but fair market conservatives would also somewhat agree. The idea of just using eminent domain because the state can is an unjust practice.
Introduction I am currently enrolled as a member of The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and chose this essay topic to further explore my family’s background. My great-great grandma, Ora Marguerite McLellan, was born on December 27, 1904, and is listed on the Final Dawes Roll as number 554. She is listed as Choctaw by blood and was added to the Dawes Rolls as a newborn. My father, who is Native American and lives in Oklahoma, doesn’t have much knowledge or insight about our family or the trials they experienced. I felt compelled to discover more about my ancestors by completing this research paper and educating myself on Native American history.
Article 17, which states that property cannot be taken from people. “ Strip!Hurry up! Our clothes will be thrown to the back.” ( ,Wiesel) “I shall remove your gold crown.” ( ,Wiesel) “I lost my shoes anyway.
Japanese American victims were paid for their suffering and the order was
What is eminent domain really? Eminent domain is where the government can buy private property to ameliorate the area, or they can allocate it to a company to build on they used it more than ten thousand times in five-year span. However, if a resident spurn to allocate their property, they have to proceed to the Supreme Court of that state to challenge the government for the possessions. The residents in Lake Wood went to court to save their homes and won. Some people have tried negotiating with the businesses trying to seize their property, nevertheless they don 't care about the person the establishment just wanted the property.
Property owners who wish to stop a government agency from exercising eminent domain on their property can attempt to prove that the agency involved did not meet the necessary requirements to start the process. Doing so is possible, but taking on this type of project is intimidating for individuals and can be costly if you don’t know exactly what you’re doing. That’s why it’s so important for southern California property owners who are considering fighting eminent domain procedures to contact an experienced real estate and eminent domain attorney in their area. There are number of potential benefits that can come from challenging the government agency exercising eminent domain procedures against your property. It could delay the project long enough to prevent it from happening altogether.
But on the other hand, eminent domain has been the result of many home owners feeling more stressed and pressured to leave their homes that they otherwise would have stayed in if it weren’t for the government forcing them out. For example, in West Palm Beach, Florida a couple, John and Wendy Zamecnik, were victims of eminent domain. During the mid-1980’s, about three hundred homes were sold to give plenty of room for a brand new golf course to be built. Although many of the families within this particular neighborhood sold their homes with ease and went on with their lives, John and Wendy were not going to give their home up without a
CHC2D Position Paper 1982-Present: Canada’s rules and rights are a part of what defines the nation. Without the implementation of laws, Canada and any other nation for that matter would not be able to live so cohesively. When analyzing the laws and constitutions that Canada has put into place, the most important law is very debateable. However, after doing research it is very clear that the most significant issue that Canada has faced to this day is the enactment of The Constitution Act of 1982, and the effect it has had on Canada. The rights and fundamental rules in the act has changed Canada for the better.
The government takes advantage of poor communities. In the article, “Reparations Are Owed” by Jamelle Bouie. Bouie expresses ways that reparations can used when dealing with property for Blacks. The government and whites raise property high so that Blacks cannot buy property. “Indeed, the same federal dollars that built the suburbs were used to keep blacks out of them” (Bouie 2).
Then when the Japanese were forced from their homes, lots of the white people stole their household items and other pieces of property. The also destroyed their homes and sold their businesses. "The excluded Japanese suffered enormous damages and losses, both material and intangible. The loss of farms, businesses, and homes, disruption of careers and professional lives and long-term loss of income, earnings and opportunity is in-calculable. In 1983 dollars, the loss was determined to fall between $810 million and $2 billion dollars.
From a cultural lens, eminent domain has resulted in blunt acts of racism and warped the perception of culture to those at the short end of the stick. People who are pro-eminent domain use it as a way to justify their racism and hatred for immigrants. Eminent domain has affected the way of life for people, especially minorities. Being a minority in cases where eminent domain is involved will most likely lead to the government winning, and getting its way. The government’s intervention in the lives of people can cause a shift in their norms that can lead to irreversible damage that they must endure.
This reflection paper will first address the advantages of using retributive justice approach in three court-cases. Second, it will discuss the disadvantages of using retributive justice approaches by analyzing the three court-cases listed above. Third, it will elaborate on ways that the system could have used restorative justice processes in the cases, as well as present potential outcomes that could have been reached if restoration justice was taken into consideration. First, during lecture three, we talked about the notion of just deserts.
Conflict resolution as a field of study as indicated has formed hypothetical bits of knowledge into the nature and source of conflict and how conflicts can be resolved through peaceful systems to effectuate a dependable settlement. Morton Deutsch, was the first to form and understanding into the helpful results of collaboration as a scholastic enquiry. In his view, various variables like the way of the debate and the objectives every group in a conflict goes for are crucial in deciding the sort of introduction a group would convey to the negotiation table in its endeavor to unravel the conflict (Morton Deucth, 1985, p.24). To him, two essential orientations do exist. These are competitive and cooperative.