Is it legal for a private company to rally a city to exercise right of eminent domain?
373094
If you mean to lobby a city, as in to attempt to convince them, the yes -- anyone is entitled to make suggestions to the government, even corporations or private companies.\n\nIs it legal for a city/county/state to take private property through eminent domain and give it to another private developer? See Kelo v. City of New London and the dozens of state/local laws that sprung up in reaction to that holding.
72653
Each state is different. And by the way, your property taxes don't pay for your roads!  Revenue comes from license plates fees, gas taxes, etc.\n\nThe city will only get involved if they have the funds and if they HAVE to.  \n\nI suggest that you contact the city board.  Sometimes management is unwilling to do something unless they get orders straight from the top.  If that doesn't work, strike up a letter campaign and let the local news know about it.  The one thing that THEY don't like is bad press.  But be prepared, they'll always claim lack of funds.  You can always file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request against them to see if they really do have the funds or not.
1038454
That is pretty much up to the Church. That is not only "private" property, but Church property. Most jurisdictions "cut Churches some slack" for such events. IF the "fund raiser" is for the direct benefit of the Church or one of it's non-profit groups, there should be no problem.
274632
private land purchases by a non profit group.
1110624
The company is called Capital Properties.
235586
Land, a place to set up, booths, and a business license.
1038556
Alice, you are going down the rabbit hole!\nIn a nutshell, there is a law that could be used to get anyone but the Rockefellers themselves out of a home/ off of land etc. they own. You aren't inquiring about real estate, you are neck deep in politics on local, State and Federal levels. So here's the worst case. A citizen can't own real estate in the USA. The best case is, a citizen can pay for real estate in the USA. Actuality/Reality falls to either side of the middle on a per case basis.\nMain concers Federally now are hydrological. Contaminated (defined by Clean Water Act standards et al) water from your property cannot mingle with natural runoff. However, Farmers seem to be exempt from this in the recent cases in Columbus, Ohio, where public water was under toxic advisories due to fertilizer runoff. I guess "if everybody is doing it" it isn't unlawful to poison the public water supply....\nOn the other hand, an egg farmer in Ohio has faced years constant Federal litigation and multiple fines for chicken farming runoff into a non contributing (to public water supply) stream. \nI don't know what your intentions are, but if you have a life to devote to these issues, you will resolve that laws are selectively enforced, which is the real issue or theme of you querry as I see it.\nWith respect to land development, Clean Water Act standards are the sword over the involved parties heads at the negotiating table. Hydrological studies by competent parties are scutinized on both the sellers side and the buyers side and some large deals are pending elections. \nClinton enacted The Clean Water Act so we can deduce what is good for business....\n\nWith regards to drug laws and real estate. Feds have carte blanche. Even large sums of cash on hand can allow for land/property siezure. \nbuzzflash.com (watchdog journalism Homeland security legislation pertaining to land use/rights)\ntheforbiddenknowlge.com (has some useful links pertaining to Federal/international real estate legislation)\n\nYou are going to be busy for awhile.....
557525
Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do, because it's city property.  We can't control who parks on city property in front of our properties.
143656
Yes most definitely and that applies even today. It falls under eminent domain. The Govt. can even take your house
652331
Part ownership in the corporation that owns the park.  The residents and others are stockholders
1163494
Yes it is legal. That happened in Smiths Station, a suburb (and in a different COUNTY) of Phenix City.
978655
Depends do you own the mineral rights?
199403
Go to City Hall to find out who owns it.
1126321
It's been done before.  As absurd as it sounds, it ocassionally happens.  Usually it's a run down building owned by a municipality that costs more to upkeep and maintain than the value of the property itself, so the city sells it to an investor or 'someone else' for a dollar, with linking agreements that the new owner develop the property into a profitable, viable acquisition that results in taxes paid to the city, etc.  Each side gets something out of it.
409311
An owner should have control of his or her property and should have the right to make up any rules about it htey want. The customer should vote with their feet. Go where they are happy.
774860
Assuming such value could be reasonable calculated, then I would have no problem with a legislature passing a law like this. It meets the intent of the 5th Amendment Takings Clause, and if the state decides they want towns to play nice -- that can't be a bad thing.\n\nThe only potential downside is the cost of litigation if lots of people start suing the towns and counties to recover what they think they might have potentially lost, based on what some zoning code did in another part of town. But that's a matter of writing the law intelligently and not allowing such legal loopholes.
251884
Through right of easment, no.  When it comes to land and real estate it falls back onto the zoning plans.  what does the township have on the books, as to where you land ends and begins.  That of course is obvious but your neighbors argument can be that, you always maintained it, doesn't infer that i chose to give it up as my property.  Unless he wants to restructure the lot size and hand over that strip to you.