Eminent domain use
<p>Is the government taking legally?</p>
<p>Basically every road in the us or anything is built with eminent domain. If we're doing this a million times a year on 100k plots that's $100b.</p>
<p>I see nowhere in the government budget where it is spending such an absurd amount to satisfy the takings clause.</p>
<p>Is the government following the fifth amendment or is it just illegally taking everything?</p>

<p>The various governments invovled do use eminent domain.</p>
<p>An authoritative <a href="https://www.artba.org/about/faq/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">website</a> about roads, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association says -</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Between 2000 and 2016, the U.S. built an average of 30,427 lane miles
of roadway per year, adding 63.4 square miles per year to the amount
of land covered by roads.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If all of it needed to be purchased and it was all in Los Angeles (2.7 million per acre) it does, coincidentally come out to 111 billion.</p>
<p>Since it will not all be purchased by one entity - every state and the feds make roads and most of the land will be 1/10 of the cost of LA real estate, you will not find anything like that number in a Federal budget.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is the government taking legally?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Basically every road in the us [sic] or anything is built with eminent domain.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is just plain wrong.</p>
<p>Many roads are built on land that the relevant government already owns.</p>
<p>Where the land is owned by another (individual, corporation or other government) then the acquisition by the relevant government is usually on negotiated terms i.e. a voluntary contract by both parties so not eminent domain.</p>
<p>For most subdivisions, there is no payment for the transfer of private land to the government because the developer <em>wants</em> roads to the properties: these will either be private roads that remain in private hands or public roads either built by the developer and transferred (free or for a nominal charge) to the government or built by the government. These sorts of things are dealt with in the approval of the development - &quot;yes, you can build 50 houses if you build the roads, power, gas etc. and transfer them to the government&quot; - only in more formal terms.</p>
<p>Where a negotiated agreement cannot be reached <em>then</em> eminent domain is used. Or they don't build the road. Or they build it somewhere else.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Using George's estimate if the government spends $3b a year on eminent domain roads and other projects in Los Angeles</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It doesn't.</p>
<p>The 2020-21 <a href="https://cao.lacity.org/budget20-21/ProposedBudget/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">budget</a> for the City of Los Angeles provides on p.173 an amount of $51,237,783 for &quot;Construction Expense&quot; - property acquisition costs (including eminent domain) would be a small fraction of these construction costs. Most of the roads in the city already exist on land owned by the city and the construction would be mainly upgrades to existing infrastructure. Very little land in LA city would be being acquired for roads on an annual basis - LA city already has the roads it needs. You can <a href="http://laways.s3-website-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">see</a> the projects the city is undertaking if you like.</p>
<p>Remember, Los Angeles City is only one of 88 cities and approximately 140 unincorporated areas within the <a href="https://lacounty.gov/government/geography-statistics/cities-and-communities/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">County of Los Angeles</a> which is only one of 5 counties in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles#Component_counties,_subregions,_and_cities" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Greater Los Angeles</a>. In addition, many of the roads in the urban area are Interstates and highways owned by the state of California. All of these have road construction budgets incorporating property acquisition too.</p>
<p><strong>In summary</strong></p>
<p>The government(s) does not take things illegally. If they try, they get sued and lose.</p>

united-states california