.png)
Is That Even Legal?
Is That Even Legal?
This Land Is Your Land...Till It's Not - the law of Eminent Domain
What happens when the government decides it needs your land? Does the Constitution really allow officials to seize your family home, farm, or business property against your will? The answer might disturb you.
Attorney Clint Schumacher, a leading eminent domain expert, joins us to unravel the complex world where constitutional rights, property ownership, and government power collide. Schumacher pulls back the curtain on a legal process that affects countless Americans but remains widely misunderstood.
We explore the landmark Kelo v. City of New London case that dramatically expanded government's ability to take private property, allowing cities to seize homes for economic development rather than traditional public uses like roads or schools. This controversial Supreme Court decision sparked nationwide outrage and legislative reforms, yet many property owners remain vulnerable.
The conversation takes a deeply human turn as Schumacher describes families losing properties held for generations – land that forms part of their identity, not just their assets. We examine the Henry family farm in New Jersey, owned by the same family for 175 years, now threatened by condemnation for affordable housing. This poignant example highlights how even worthy public goals create profound private sacrifices.
We also demystify the compensation process, revealing the often significant gap between government appraisals and true property value. Schumacher explains why property owners frequently feel shortchanged even when receiving "just compensation," especially when forced to pay their own legal fees from their settlement amounts.
Whether you're a property owner concerned about your rights - even His Eminence...the POPE ---His CHILDHOOD HOME was subject to eminent domain - or simply want to understand this fascinating intersection of law, economics, and human dignity, this episode provides crucial insights into a power that Schumacher calls "a necessary evil." Despite its importance for infrastructure development, nothing government does to innocent citizens feels more invasive than taking their property against their will.
Have questions about your legal rights? Contact us at producer@evenlegal.com. And while we sound smart and lovable, remember: we're not your lawyers, and this isn't legal advice!
Our Guest: Clint Schumacher
Clint Schumacher focuses his litigation practice on eminent domain and government taking litigation. Clint has represented property owners of all sizes that are being impacted by public projects. Before joining his present firm, Dawson & Sodd, Clint represented regional toll authorities and mass-transit authorities in some of the largest projects in north Texas. Clint’s dedication to excellence has led to him receiving the designation of Counselor of Real Estate, as well as that of Texas Super Lawyer in Eminent Domain by Texas Lawyer magazine in 2014-25. He has also been recognized by D Magazine as one of the top lawyers in Dallas. In 2021, Clint released a book on resiliency called Second Wind: Decisions the Resilient Make to Overcome Adversity. Clint is married to his college sweetheart, Jennifer, and they have three boys. Clint is also a dedicated football coach, having coached at Trinity Christian Academy (2016–2025) and Dallas Bills (2009-2017). He is a member of the Texas State High School Coaches Association and the American Football Coaches Association.
Is that even legal? It's a question we ask ourselves on a daily basis. We ask it about our neighbors, we ask it about our elected officials, we ask it about our family and sometimes we ask it to ourselves. The law is complex and it impacts everyone all the time, and that's why we are here. I'm attorney Bob Sewell and this is season five of the Worldwide Podcast that explores that one burning question. Is that even legal? Let's go. Today's guest on Is that Even Legal? Is Clint Schumacher. He is an eminent domain attorney in Texas. He offices out of Dallas and I'm happy to have you on the show. Thanks for coming on the show.
Clint Schumacher:Man, bob, thank you, Appreciate the invitation, looking forward to our visit.
Bob Sewell:So there's an interesting story in the news right now that made me want to have you on the show to talk about eminent domain. Show to talk about eminent domain. And it sounds very fancy, eminent domain, but it just basically means the government's going to take your property right.
Bob Sewell:And so the story is apparently the new Pope he grew up in a small town or a town called Dalton in Illinois I don't know how small it is, but it sounds like a small town and his house is being the town wants to condemn his house and take over, use eminent domain to take over his house and turn it into a tourist attraction. And I just, first of all, I find it fascinating we have an American pope and, second of all, that someone wants to go visit his his middle class upbringing in Salt in Illinois. But what are we talking about when we're talking about eminent domain?
Clint Schumacher:Yeah, you bet you know a lot of people are surprised when they find out that all of us that own real property own it subject to our government taking it if they need it for a public use. And that's really the only restriction against the government exercising that power is it does have to be for a public use, and different jurisdictions, different states, define what that means differently, and those concepts come down from our federal constitution, from state constitutions, from state statutes. But yeah, all of us are subject to having our property taken if the government decides it needs it.
Bob Sewell:Yeah, and that's the key words, right. They have to take it for public use. Those are the key words, right.
Clint Schumacher:That's right for public use. Those are the key words. Right, that's right. And there was a pretty well-known case that came out of the US Supreme Court maybe 15 years ago called Kelo versus City of New London. And until Kelo came out, I tell them I did eminent domain and nobody knew what the heck I was talking about. But Kelo kind of made the papers, it made the newscast because it really got a lot of people worked up.
Clint Schumacher:And the basic story in Kelo was the city of New London, connecticut, decided they wanted to make way for a new developer to come in and build a large office, complex industrial facility that was going to provide a lot of jobs to the community. But to do that they were going to have to take the houses of many longtime residents, one of whom was Suzette Kelo. And Ms Kelo said no, you're not going to do that, you're not going to take my house. And she fought them all the way to the US Supreme Court. And Bob, that was really the question before the court, which was, in this particular instance, did the city have a justified public use to take Ms Kelo's house for economic development? And our Supreme Court at the time said yes, that's enough, you can do that and, man, that caused a massive outrage across the country and, like 47 different states, passed statutes to said well, you know, the US Supreme Court may say that, but that's not the rule of the road in our state.
Bob Sewell:And they really restricted and tightened down what public use means in the various states to another private party, and that's not what we thought of traditionally as public purpose, right, I mean, that's not how we generally think about public purpose.
Clint Schumacher:How do we generally think about public purpose? Yeah, I think you got it. I mean most people when they think public purpose they think highways, they think school buildings. You know, maybe they think electric lines. You know they think of things that the city government or the state government are going to operate and that everyone in the public is able to use parks. But there are a lot of other uses. So, for example, pipelines that's a big use. You know oil and gas pipelines that's really private companies that operate those pipelines and they are given the power in almost all of our states to come in and acquire property for that use. At least in Texas and a number of other places, the entities that operate our electric lines are private entities. You can buy stock in those entities and they've been given the right to come in and exercise eminent domain for those uses because the legislatures in our various states have said well, that's a really important use and if they don't have the right to come and condemn, it's going to restrict this important infrastructure from being built.
Bob Sewell:Right, and with those I sort of understand right, because you know, here we have it, we have a whole federal and state regulatory system and and we decided that in America we want to have power to our homes, we want to have natural gas piped right into our houses, we don't want to have it trucked into our houses, we don't want to have batteries into our houses, we want to have the wires and the pipes come in. And so I sort of understand that these private entities are fulfilling government purposes, government regulatory schemes. But KELA was different because it was a development scheme, right.
Clint Schumacher:Yeah, no, that's right. And the public use in that particular case was providing jobs to the citizens. And you know, the city of New London said this is something good for our community. The state of Connecticut said yes, this is good for our community. And ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed that's enough of a public use. It may not be anymore as we sit here in 2025, but at that time it was.
Bob Sewell:And the other thing that is interesting is what is defined as how they end up paying the value they assess. Because that's an interesting idea Like how do you determine what is the public use? Excuse me, not public use. How do you determine what is the public use? You know, excuse me, not public use. How do you determine what the value is.
Clint Schumacher:Yeah, I mean, thankfully in the US, as opposed to some other countries, when the government does exercise its right of eminent domain, we are guaranteed in the federal constitution and in almost every state constitution the right to receive in some instances they call it just compensation, in other instances they call it fair compensation. But all that basically boils down to this very practical idea of what is fair market value. If you and I were going to go make a trade and neither you nor I were compelled to sell or compelled to buy, and we were just negotiating a purchase, what is the price that we would arrive at? And that's what we're supposed to try to reflect for what the government or a private entity that has in it domain power, what they're supposed to pay to the property owner where they're taking property and oftentimes you can figure out the property that you're actually acquiring.
Clint Schumacher:Most of the time you're pretty close as to what that is. You can generally get that figured out. Where you can get a little, where it gets more complicated is the other thing you get as a property owner is damage to your remaining property. So if I take a part of your property but I create damage to the rest of it. Well, I, the government, have to pay you for that too. Now that's where you can get some very, you know, very large differences of opinion.
Bob Sewell:I think they call that severance damages right.
Clint Schumacher:That's right. Many states call that severance damages. That's right.
Bob Sewell:So you're you know, maybe you have a five acre parcel and and maybe it's worth a thousand dollars an acre as it is. But then you know, I'm making these numbers up, and so we got five acres, a thousand dollars an acre $5,000. But the city takes all but an acre. Now it's not worth $1,000 an acre. That final acre is worth $500. That's what you're talking about severance, because it's just not the value isn't there, like it used to be.
Clint Schumacher:Right. The use is diminished or the value is diminished in some way. That's right.
Clint Schumacher:Yeah, but there's, and that's an interesting concept, but there's also a concept called a regulatory taking, right, yeah, so there's times where the government can pass some regulation or some legislation that by itself robs all, or perhaps a significant amount, of the value of your property.
Clint Schumacher:And probably the easiest example and the ones that have come up to the Supreme Court are let's say you own beachfront property in California and that property is very valuable if you can put it to use. But let's say you live in a jurisdiction in California that says, you know what? We've decided that people that have beachfront property need to make that property available to the public so that anybody can walk up and down it. Well, now, all of a sudden, your beautiful piece of property where you're going to build your dream house is a lot less valuable because you can't control who's walking up and down in front of it. That's potentially a regulatory taking, where there's some regulation that impacts the value of your property. The government's not physically taking it away, but they are regulating how you can use it or perhaps who you can keep from using it.
Bob Sewell:Yeah, I had a situation arise and this one's going to amuse you where, on the city's general plan, they listed my client's land as a park. Yeah, there you go. Listed my client's land as a park, yeah, there you go. And so now, what do you sell this property for when you, when you have a quote unquote, your land is, quote, unquote a park, and you know well, now you got a regulatory taking in my opinion. And and uh, who's going to buy that land, knowing that the, the use of that land in the future will be a park?
Clint Schumacher:That's right. The other way, the city designates it, is reserved green space, which I think is just a fancy way of saying park. Yeah, as long as you keep it as a yard, we're good.
Bob Sewell:Right, so you represent the government generally on that side right, I almost always represent the property owner.
Clint Schumacher:We're on the other side of that.
Bob Sewell:Oh, you're on the other side. Okay, I misunderstood that. So you are fighting the good fight for the little guy.
Clint Schumacher:Well, that's the way I like to look at it, Bob. You know, my friends on the other side of the aisle to represent the government say, well, it's necessary for us to do this because we've got to keep the wheels of government moving and we've got to have infrastructure. And I get it. But I do feel like, Bob, I'm on the right side of that and fighting the good fight, as you would say.
Bob Sewell:But what amazes me is the differences in opinion, like on values. The government comes in and the value is always low. It's always low. There's a guy who represent the government here out here in Arizona, last name Lopez, and behind the people like you, behind his back, call him lowball Lopez and because he's an appraiser for the government, and the amazing thing is it's always 30% less than what the other guy is saying. How does this work? How do we?
Clint Schumacher:make that determination? Yeah, so all appraisers and this is a very expert-driven field, right? So generally, the most important people in a trial are going to be the appraisers on one side or the other, and they are given somewhat of a difficult task. I mean, they've got to assume this hypothetical world where you actually want to sell your property to the government and the government is not forced to have to buy it, which is completely false. But that's the hypothetical world that we operate in. And they try to figure out well, what would these two people, what deal would they come to? Well, you know, that's hard to figure out, but what you do is you try to emulate what people would do if they were in a normal real estate transaction. And so what people do is they look at a couple of different things.
Clint Schumacher:We have what we call three approaches to value. We have the sales comparison approach, the cost approach and the income approach. And if you think about it, these things kind of make sense. And so the sales comparison approach is well, what would another property like this sell for? And that's what all of us do when we buy houses or we rent apartments. Is we look at okay, well, three bedrooms, two baths, a pool, what does that go for in this neighborhood? And we try to pay something similar to that Cost approach says well, what would it cost to build this from scratch?
Clint Schumacher:If you had to buy the real estate and then build the building or whatever structures on it, what would that cost? And that's how much you would pay. Okay, that makes sense. And then the third is an income approach. If it's an income producing property so think about a warehouse that gets rented out for industrial uses and they pay X dollars per month what is that income stream worth? And you can do a calculation and figure that out. And so you know, these appraisers are all looking at data, but at the end of the day, they've got to apply some judgment to that data. And there's some that may have a more conservative or lower valuation from the data they see. And there's some that may have a more aggressive valuation from the data they see. But that's what they're trying to do.
Bob Sewell:What's interesting to me is here in Arizona, a lot of towns, the infrastructure is built by the developer. So let's say, I have a you know, I'm certain it's the same thing out there in Texas, where the speculation is on the desert right. So people go out and buy desert land and then they just hold it and the highest and best use of the land is buy and hold for 50 years, and that's what they do. I mean, there's the whole industry around buying and holding and selling these, these parcels. So, um, but there are times when you, when they get to the point, when the city comes out to the desert far enough that they want to develop, and so what the cities around here do is they say, hey, go ahead and, uh, you build out that road, you put in that city light, you put in the sidewalks, you put in the sewer, then you could develop. And that's just damn expensive. Yeah, yeah, it is expensive, yeah, yeah it is and.
Bob Sewell:I mean, we're talking millions of dollars for, for you know, a quarter mile of road or whatever it is sometimes, and those and those, those, you know if you've got a corner lot and it's commercial, you know, and there you know that the lights are going, you have lights and infrastructure, but and it's going to be just a hell of a lot of money. So there are times when the city, though, they're so sick of this developer, this property owner, and they need to expand the road, and they say, fine, we're going to build the road because you're not developing this and this is an infill lot, so we're taking 15 feet of your frontage. Those are times when the city is taking property but they're actually increasing the value to the remaining parcel. How does that work out? At the end of the day? You pay the city, or what's happened there?
Clint Schumacher:Yeah, so what you're describing is probably what we would call an exaction, and cities have the right to impose upon a developer the cost to build the infrastructure that supports that development, and at some level, when you think about it, that makes sense. I mean, otherwise, cities would either go broke or they would have to charge so much in taxes to everybody else that it would become a problem, and so if the developer is going to profit from that neighborhood, it seems fair that they ought to have to pay for the infrastructure that neighborhood requires. Where you run into trouble, though, sometimes, is you'll have cities that, let's say, get greedy and they actually are requiring the developer to do things over and above the burden that that development's going to put on the city infrastructure. So you know you've got a development that's going to put in 10 houses and they want you to donate the land for a, you know, six mile wide road. Well, your 10 houses aren't going to create that much traffic.
Clint Schumacher:So in that instance we call that an illegal exaction, and so that's an exaction. That is more than the burden you're putting on the infrastructure, which is all the city can require you to donate. With regard to your particular question, if that donation or that exaction actually enhances the value of the property. You, the owner, still get paid for the actual property that is taken or donated or burdened, but you may not have a good claim for the damages to the rest of your property because your value went up, it didn't go down. Does that make sense?
Bob Sewell:Yeah, it does. Is eminent domain a good thing?
Clint Schumacher:I think I call it a necessary evil. I mean, I think without eminent domain we could not function as a society like we function now, and so there's a lot of benefits to having the kind of infrastructure that we have, and you need an eminent domain to make that infrastructure work. But at the same time, if you're an owner of property, there's nothing. I don't think there's anything more invasive that our government does to an innocent person than come in and take their property against their will, and so it's very difficult when you're in that situation.
Clint Schumacher:And, bob, I talked to families that have had property in their families for a hundred years. Their, their great grandfather bought it and it's just been handed down from generation to generation and they never in their wildest imagination could ever see themselves selling it, because it's part of who they are and part of who their family is, and to have the government come and take it or put something across it is just emotionally damaging and you can't get made whole for that. And so I you know, I think it's necessary, but I still think it creates an incredible burden for the people that have to bear that cost.
Bob Sewell:There's a there's a farm out in it's New Jersey and it's become a bit of a political football. It's owned by this henry family. Christopher and andy henry owned the farm and they lease it out right now, for what I understand, and their town wants to take it right. It's been in their family for 175 years and they want to put it to public purpose and they're saying, well, but I we're not done with our livelihood and we're not done ranching. And what's interesting is we're taught in law school that land is unique, that there's nothing. Each individual land is special and unique and you can't replace it. Individual land is special and unique and you know you can't replace it. You know it's hard to imagine that thought when we're, you know, when you know most of us in cities live in tract housing or apartments or whatever, and one apartment doesn't feel that much different than from another apartment. But people like the Henry family, they feel like land is unique and that this is a part of them, irreplaceable. That's the way they feel about it.
Clint Schumacher:Yeah, and Bob, I can't tell you how many conversations like that I've had through the years and it's interesting. You gave me a heads up that you wanted to visit about that particular case, which I had not heard about until you raised it with me. But I reached out to one of my friends that practices in this area in New Jersey named Tony Delapel, and Tony was very familiar with the case and in fact sent me a petition because the Henry family they own it in a corporate entity, henry Realty Company filed a lawsuit last week to stop that taking from going forward. But in New Jersey they have these, I would say, fairly aggressive affordable housing statutes and, as I understand it, where this property was, the town of Cranberry there was a court order of some sort that is requiring the township to build more affordable housing and so they have decided that they want to take the Henry family land to do that.
Clint Schumacher:And so you've got these two competing. You know you've got these two competing public, you know, uses things that the public would deem important. On the one hand you've got affordable housing I think pretty much everyone would agree we need more affordable housing and on the other end, you've got somebody's private property. Well, you know, cranberry, new Jersey, can't build affordable housing without finding some land to build it on. And they just happened to decide that the Henry family land, for whatever reason, was the right place to do it. Well, you know, as you've said, that is the Henry family land. I mean, that's their unique plot of land and they've got whatever memories they've got built up into that piece of property. And so you've got these two very important competing values going up against each other and, at the end of the day, one of them is going to have to give. Either Henry is going to have to give up the land or Henry's successful in this challenge and the town of Cranberry has to go find somewhere else to build.
Bob Sewell:The Constitution says for the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that says that you cannot take private property. The government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation. We talked about that term just compensation. Is this the best system or is there something else that we could be doing, like I mean we think about? Let me put this into more perspective. Anyone who's visited New York has been to Central Park. Central Park did not start out as Central Park. That was owned by other people and it was confiscated or condemned eminent domain, however you call it for the public use. And without that process and people still feel that what happened there was unfair, how they gave the compensation, people still feel it's unfair, but nonetheless we did it and the city of New York has benefited from Central Park for however many years it's been around a couple hundred years, if I'm not mistaken. Is there a better system? Should we in this country be thinking about something else?
Clint Schumacher:Man? That's a great question, bob. I think, globally, if there's a better system, I don't know what it is, but, as with all things, there are times where the system gets abused and there's times where a local government or a private entity with eminent domain power exercises that power in a way that is just not very prudent, not very smart, not very, you know, more short-sighted than far-sighted. And so you know, I don't think there's a better system. But I think there are certainly instances where the people operating that system make errors in judgment, sometimes, frankly, errors in morals, or sometimes it just there would be a better way to handle a specific instance. But globally, I mean, I think it's probably something, unfortunately, that we have to have to make our society work.
Bob Sewell:I tend to agree, and our system is good. I mean, if I go to China I'm not paid, just compensation. They just take it.
Clint Schumacher:Yeah, exactly right, that's right.
Bob Sewell:And at least here I'm going to get something for my sacrifice, right?
Clint Schumacher:Well, that's right, and you know you get in almost all of our states. You would have a jury of your peers. If you couldn't ever decide how much you were due, a jury of your peers would answer that question for you and for whoever was taking your property. And at the end of the day, you know we've decided in America. That's justice and you know so. At least you have a remedy.
Bob Sewell:Attorney's fees. I want to talk about that because that's kind of a rub and in a lot of states, at least here in Arizona, the chances of getting attorney's fees in an eminent domain case. So I, you know I'm worth every dollar people spend on me, right I mean, that's the way I view it, but right I mean, but there's a cost benefit and Arizona generally, you don't get attorney's fees in a condemnation case. So you go up against the government, the government pays its fees and the homeowner or the property owner pays his or her fees. Is that a common system and is that a problem generally?
Clint Schumacher:I do think that's a burden on property owners, but that is the majority system in the US, that the government is not obligated to pay the landowner's attorney's fees. And I think the argument that property owners would make and that I make when I have this discussion with people, because it's the same way in my home state of Texas is you're really not making a property owner whole. If they've got to and I'm like you, bob, I think I'm worth every penny I charge but if the property owner's got to pay me out of what they get as fair market value, then they really haven't gotten fair market value. They've gotten something less than that because of the cost to get it value. They've gotten something less than that because of the cost to get it.
Clint Schumacher:On the other hand, there are states like Florida is probably the prime example where the property owner's counsel or lawyer and their experts all get paid for by the government. Well, that makes government projects more expensive. And so the government would argue well, look, if we have to pay that additional cost, then that is just. Either one of two things happen. Either one, we've got to increase the tax base to make up for it, or two, we do less projects and because the taxing question is largely a political question, not an eminent domain question, it probably just means they do less projects, and so you know that's the balancing or the competing interest of that.
Bob Sewell:I want to thank you for coming on, clint. It's been really good it's been. You're obviously a pro in what you're doing and I'm certain you represent your clients very well, so thank you for coming on and talking about the subject.
Clint Schumacher:Man, bob, I sure did appreciate getting to visit with you. I know there's. You know, when you wake up in the morning most people don't think well, gosh, I'd love to have a conversation about eminent domain, but I think about it almost every day. I find it fascinating. It's this interesting little intersection of constitutional rights, civil rights and property rights. And you know, and like I say, it's a necessary evil, but we try to help people get made whole on the backside of it, and so to get to visit with you on your show, on your platform, has been a great honor.
Bob Sewell:Thanks for listening to the podcast Is that even legal is now listened to in 100 countries and available on virtually all podcast platforms. Leave us a review, send us some show ideas and do so at producer at even legalcom. Don't forget, as smart as we sound and as lovable as we are, we are not your lawyers and we are not giving you legal advice. But if you need some legal advice, get some. There are some great lawyers out there and we are always ready to help. See you next time.