A fierce confrontation demolition caused by the ongoing discussions, many legal issues involving the protection of private property, China public network published Zhang Libin introduced articles about the issue of property expropriation and compensation in the private American law, as follows. But I think American whole social system is based on private ownership, constitution has a limitation on government power, the famous constitutional amendment "bill of rights" is to restrict the government shall not in any form of violation of individual rights, and the independence of the judiciary, subject to various constraints in the driving power in the process of government. So in the expropriation and compensation, and China situations are not comparable.

Any country, there comes a time when he must be taken, American legal provisions, the government has the right to compulsory expropriation of land, but the conditions must be to the "public interest", and the need to "fair compensation". China Constitution clearly stipulates, "the lawful private property of citizens are not violated." "Property law" also had detailed, namely "the legitimate property of private, protected by law, no entity or individual may encroach, plunder, destruction."

The key lies in the so-called "public interest", what is "fair compensation", who has the power of interpretation, who has jurisdiction, this, is the key to the problem.

(excerpt) USA law in the "collection" is not only a property law problem, but also a question of the constitution. From the angle of constitution, levy is based on government government expropriation power (eminent domain), between the protection of it and the Constitution in the ownership of private property in conflict with each other. How to resolve this conflict is an important part of American property law. At the constitutional level, USA legal provisions relating to two aspects of private property: on the one hand is to give the constitutional protection of private property, which mainly embodies the due process clause in the fifth amendment to the constitution of USA "" (Due Process Clause), or any person of life, liberty or property without due process shall be deprived of; on the other hand, USA takings clause of Fifth Amendment of the constitution "" (Takings Clause) regulations, the government in providing fair compensation (just compensation) case, for public use to have the power to levy personal property. The implementation of a behavior can be at all levels of government, in some limited circumstances, can also be exercised in the public or government responsibilities of Private Companies.

More than a hundred years ago the Federal Supreme Court justice Cooley said, "the most important received strong" case is: the government's expropriation is motivated by the need to achieve some public interest, and not doing so will not be able to achieve this objective, and not pay attention to law as duplicate removal. "If there are public needs (public need)", "abstract right is one according to his ways to use their own property, should the general well-being had succumbed to the community and protected, and the rights of other people (relative rights) due respect. "

Michigan in 2004 the Supreme Court case of Kirk v. Haas Wayne County (County of Wayne v. Hathcock), Wayne County is located in the local airport to private land expropriation south after the transfer to a company, for the construction of a large commercial technology park, which includes a conference center, hotel and entertainment facilities. Wayne said County, expropriation is to create new employment opportunities, stimulate private investment and the county's further development, and increase the tax revenue to support the development of new opportunities. Wayne County judge pointed out, as justice Cooley pointed out, every kind of business in society (business), each production unit, are in some way for the public welfare contribution. If only on the basis of an entity using someone else's property to the pursuit of their own profits will contribute to the healthy development of the economy of this fact is that the government conclusion collection of justification, will make the American constitution of government expropriation power limit altogether become a mere scrap of paper. The so-called "legal economic interest" in the case of Bolton analysis makes those who represent the interests and a private entity in reality the government expropriation behavior becomes effective and legitimate. The judge in the case that, Wayne County land use and USA constitution in the first time of the promulgation of American public general understanding of "public use" completely different. The judge has pointed out, "public use" shall meet one of the following three conditions: (I) should involve public "an extreme type demand (public necessity) and not levy can not achieve the purpose, this requirement includes" highway, railroad, canal and other commercial vehicles "(II); private parties use the expropriated property still accountable to the public (accountable to the public) its use is still a certain, government control; (III) of the expropriated land selection is based on the public interest considerations. Finally, the judge in the case that involved in this case, the project is not related to "public demand" project, and for those levied on Wayne County property no longer have control, and finally, to levy property selection is not based on the public interest (such as remediation slums etc.) considerations. Therefore, in this case the judge in the case against Wayne county.

The second question is whether the price of fair compensation levy. For this problem, American famous judge Posner (Posner J.) said in the Coniston Corp v. Village of Hoffman Estates case in a few words: "fair compensation should be considered as long as pay market prices can be....... Therefore, the compensation of constitutional significance of compensation is not complete (full compensation), because the market price is not each property owner gives it the value of the property, but only marginal owner (marginal owner) gave the property value, and the marginal external and objective. In most cases, the marginal nature of many owners is actually the inner and subjective, namely ownership because of the demolition costs and has the property of emotion or special (possibly weird) needs, the market price of the property given value is often greater than the property. The owner, if the government expropriation of their property and only give them the market price compensation, then this person will feel hurt. Levy robs they obtained from the property of the added value and private value. However, as long as the collection is used for public use (public use) of the objective, the fair market price is the fair compensation. "Judge Posner words recognizes that should be given a" fair compensation "standard, which does not consider the ownership of the" marginal "intrinsic value, but only on the fair market value of the property. That is a price standard hand should not be less than the fair market price of private property, but on the other hand, expropriation price generally will not fair market price is higher than the property.