Eminent domain (United States), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia), or expropriation (South Africa and Canada) is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for public utilities, highways, and railroads;^{[citation needed]} however, it may also be taken for reasons of public safety, such as in the case of Centralia, Pennsylvania. Some jurisdictions require that the government body offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain.

Meaning[link]

The term "eminent domain" was taken from the legal treatise De Jure Belli et Pacis, written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625,^[1] which used the term dominium eminens (Latin for supreme lordship) and described the power as follows:

"... The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property."

Some U.S. states, including New York and Louisiana, use the term appropriation as a synonym for the exercising of eminent domain powers.

Condemnation[link]

The term "condemnation" is used to describe the formal act of the exercise of the power of eminent domain to transfer title to the property from its private owner to the government. This use of the word should not be confused with its sense of a declaration that property is uninhabitable due to defects. Condemnation via eminent domain indicates the government is taking ownership of the property or some lesser interest in it, such as an easement. After the condemnation action is filed the amount of just compensation is determined. However, in some cases, the property owner challenges the action because the proposed taking is not for "public use", or the condemnor is not legislatively authorized to take the subject property, or has not followed the proper substantive or procedural steps as required by law.

Other property[link]

The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to real property. Governments may also condemn personal property. Governments can even condemn intangible property such as contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. Even the taking of professional sports team's franchise has been held by the California Supreme Court to satisfy the "public use" constitutional limitation, although eventually, that taking was not permitted because it was deemed to violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.^[2]

North America[link]

United States[link]

Constitution[link]

The practice of condemnation was transplanted into the American colonies with the common law. In the early years, unimproved land could be taken without compensation; this practice was accepted because land was so abundant that it could be cheaply replaced. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. Thomas Jefferson favored eliminating all remnants of feudalism, and pushed for allodial ownership.^[3] James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose", "public interest", or "public benefit".^[4]

The Fifth Amendment imposes limitations on the exercise of eminent domain: the taking must be for public use and just compensation must be paid. Some historians have suggested that these limitations on the taking power were inspired by the need to permit the army to secure mounts, fodder and provisions from local ranchers and the perceived need to assure them compensation for such takings. Similarly, soldiers forcibly sought housing in whatever homes were near their military assignments. To address the latter problem, the Third Amendment was enacted in 1791 as part of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. It provided that the quartering of soldiers on private property could not take place in peacetime without the landowner's consent. It also required that, in wartime, established law had to be followed in housing troops on private property. Presumably, this would mandate "just compensation", a requirement for the exercise of eminent domain in general per the Fifth Amendment.^[5] All US states have legislation specifying eminent domain procedures within their respective territories.^[6]

The power of governments to take private real or personal property has always existed in the United States, being an inherent attribute of sovereignty. This power reposes in the legislative branch of the government and may not be exercised unless the legislature has authorized its use by statutes that specify who may use it and for what purposes. The legislature may delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals for the purpose of acquiring access to their landlocked land. Its use was limited by the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, which reads, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". The Fifth Amendment did not create the national government's right to use the eminent domain power, it simply limited it to public use.^[7]

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the right of states to make their own determinations of public use, although the reason why the constitutional term "public use" should not be subject to federal judicial interpretation, the same as other constitutional terms, has not been explained. In 1832 the Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to allow a mill owner to expand his dam and operations by flooding an upstream neighbor. The court opinion stated that a public use does not have to mean public occupation of the land; it can mean a public benefit.^[8] In Clark vs. Nash (1905), the Supreme Court acknowledged that different parts of the country have unique circumstances and the definition of public use thus varied with the facts of the case. It ruled a farmer could expand his irrigation ditch across another farmer's land (with compensation), because that farmer was entitled to "the flow of the waters of the said Fort Canyon Creek... and the uses of the said waters... [is] a public use." Here, in recognizing the arid climate and geography of Utah, the Court indicated the farmer not adjacent to the river had as much right as the farmer who was, to access the waters.^[9] However, until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the limitations on eminent domain specified in the Fifth Amendment applied only to the federal government and not to the states. That view ended in 1896 when in the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago case the court held that the eminent domain provisions of the Fifth Amendment were incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus were now binding on the states, or in other words, when the states take private property they are required to devote it to a public purpose and compensate the property owner for his loss.^[10] This was the beginning of what is now known as the "selective incorporation" doctrine.

An expansive interpretation of eminent domain was reaffirmed in Berman v. Parker (1954), in which the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed an effort by the District of Columbia to take and raze blighted structures, in order to eliminate slums in the Southwest Washington area. After the taking, held the court, the taken and razed land could be transferred to private redevelopers who would construct condominiums, private office buildings and a shopping center. The Supreme Court ruled against the owners of a non-blighted property within the area on the grounds that the project should be judged on its plans as a whole, not on a parcel by parcel basis. In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984), the Supreme Court approved the use of eminent domain to transfer a land lessor's title to its tenants who owned and occupied homes built on the leased land. The court's justification was to break up a housing oligopoly, and thereby lower or stabilize home prices, although in reality, following the Midkiff decision, home prices on Oahu escalated dramatically, more than doubling within a few years.^{[citation needed]}

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry that eminent domain powers were too broad. In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock (2004)), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney (2006)), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

The redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of now (2012 - more than a half-dozen years after the court's decision) nothing has been built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of over $80 million in public funds. The Pfizer corporation, which would have been the primary beneficiary of the additional development, announced in 2009 that it would close its $300 million New London research facility, shortly before the expiration of its 10-year tax abatement agreement with the city.^[11] The facility was subsequently purchased in 2010 for just $55 million by General Dynamics Electric Boat.^[12]

American libertarians argue that eminent domain is unnecessary. Bruce L. Benson notes that utilities, for instance, have a variety of methods at their disposal, such as option contracts and dummy buyers, to obtain the contiguous parcels of land needed to build pipelines, roads, and so forth. These methods are routinely used to acquire land needed for shopping malls and other large developments.^[13] Walter Block argues that the problem of recalcitrant landowners ("holdouts") who refuse reasonable offers for the sale of their land is solved in the long term by the fact that their failure to accumulate wealth through such trades will give them a relative disadvantage in attempting to accumulate more land. Thus, the vast majority of land will tend to fall into the control of those who are willing to make profitable exchanges.^[14]

Compensation[link]

American courts have held that the preferred measure of "just compensation" is "fair market value", i.e., the price that a willing but unpressured buyer would pay a willing but unpressured seller for the subject property under ordinary circumstances, with both parties fully informed of the property's good and bad features.^[15] Also, this approach takes into account the property's highest and best use (i.e., its most profitable use) which is not necessarily its current use or the use mandated by current zoning if there is a reasonable probability of zone change.

This approach has been severely criticized because it omits from consideration a variety of incidental economic losses that a taking of land inflicts on its owners. The most egregious example of such losses is provided by the American rule that denies any compensation to owners of businesses that are destroyed when land on which they are located is taken, and the business cannot relocate. A small minority of states have provided by statute that at least some business losses are compensable.

Also, attorneys' and appraisers' fees are not recoverable (except in Florida) so the owners of the taken property never recover the full value of the taken land, even if they prevail in the valuation trial, because a part of their recovery must be used to pay those lawyers and appraisers. Some states do provide for limited recovery of such litigation expenses, typically when the owners' recovery substantially exceeds the amount of the condemnor's pretrial offer or the evidence presented by the condemnor at trial by a specified percentage. Also, when a condemnation action is abandoned, the owners are typically entitled (by statute) to be paid reasonable attorneys' and appraisers' fee they had to incur in defending the condemnation action.

When payment of compensation is delayed, the owner of the taken land is entitled to receive interest on the award of compensation, that accrues from the time of taking to the time of payment. The interest must be reasonable, so that when prevailing market rates of interest exceed the statutory rate (as in inflationary times), the former has to be used.

The U.S. Supreme Court takes the position that unlike the determination of what is a "public use," the determination of compensation is a judicial, not legislative, function, but legislatures are free to provide for more liberal awards of compensation than the constitutional minimum determined by courts.

In cases of partial takings of land, the owners are entitled to compensation for the taken part, plus severance damages (the diminution of value of what remains of their property after the taking). If the partial taking creates special benefits (i.e., it causes an increase in the value of the remaining land) their value is offset against compensation, with the majority of states allowing such offsets only against severance damages, so the owner always gets paid for the taken land. When a partial taking impairs access to the remainder land, that gives rise to a contentious issue because courts take the position that diminution in value caused by impaired access is compensable only when the impairment is substantial. Traffic regulations that affect access (one-way streets, median dividers, etc.) are deemed exercises of the police power and are not compensable.

In addition to fee simple titles, all interests in property (easements, leaseholds, etc.) are compensable. The measure of value of a leasehold is the amount by which prevailing comparable rentals in the area exceed the actual contracted-for rent. This amount is known as "bonus value" of a lease. It is calculated over the remaining life of the lease and then reduced to its present value. The measure of compensation for an easement is the difference in the value of the subject land as unencumbered and as encumbered by the easement.

In determining value, zoning and other land-use regulations are considered, but if it appears that there is a reasonable probability of zone change to a higher use, that may be shown and in that case the owner is entitled to an additional increment of value (the extra amount over and above the value under current zoning, that the market would pay for the probability of rezoning).

The appraisal profession recognizes several different methods of calculating value, but courts are largely stuck in the convention of using three valuation approaches: (a) market data analysis or comparable sales value, (b) the capitalization of rentals, and (c) the reproduction-less-depreciation approach under which the cost of reproducing the improvements on the property is estimated and then depreciated to allow for wear and tear and functional or economic obsolescence. The value of the land is then added to the value of the reproduced, depreciated improvements. Some states allow compensation as the cost of reproduction without depreciation, but only in cases where the subject property, though privately owned, performs an important public or charitable function.

The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated (U.S. v. Cors) that it is not its intention to make a "fetish" out of market value as the measure of compensation, and that other approaches may be used when conventional methods do not work, or if applied, would create an injustice (Pewee Coal v. United States). These situations, however, are extremely rare.

Studies in several parts of the country (California, Georgia, Minnesota, New York and Utah) have demonstrated that condemning agencies frequently undercompensate property owners, and that those owners who reject the pre-litigation offers and go to court tend to recover substantially higher awards, whether by judges or juries.

Tax implications[link]

When private property is destroyed, stolen, condemned, or disposed of, the owner may receive a payment in property or money in the form of insurance or a condemnation award.^[16] If property is compulsorily or involuntarily converted into money (as in eminent domain) the proceeds can be reinvested without payment of capital gains tax provided it is reinvested in property similar or related in service or use to the property so converted, no capital gain shall be recognized.^[17]

Bush executive order[link]

On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13406 which stated in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." The order limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".^[18] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the federal government.

Canada[link]

In Canada, expropriation is governed by federal or provincial statutes. Under these statutory regimes, public authorities have the right to acquire private property for public purposes, so long as the acquisition is approved by the appropriate government body. Once property is taken, an owner is entitled to "be made whole" by compensation for: the market value of the expropriated property, injurious affection to the remainder of the property (if any), disturbance damages, business loss, and special difficulty relocating. Owners can advance claims for compensation above that initially provided by the expropriating authority by bringing a claim before the court or an administrative body appointed by the governing legislation.

Europe[link]

In many European nations, the European Convention on Human Rights provides protection from appropriation of private property by the state. Article 8 of the Convention provides that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence" and prohibits interference with this right by the state, unless the interference is in accordance with law and necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, or protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This right is expanded by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, which states that "Every natural person or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.". Again, this is subject to exceptions where state deprivation of private possessions is in the general or public interest, is in accordance with law, and, in particular, to secure payment of taxes. Settled case-law of ECHR provides that just compensation has to be paid in cases of expropriation.^[19]

France[link]

In France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen similarly mandates just and preliminary compensation before expropriation; and a Déclaration d'utilité publique is commonly required, to demonstrate a public benefit.

Notably, in 1945, by decree of General Charles de Gaulle based on the untried^[20] accusations of collaboration, the Renault company was expropriated from Louis Renault posthumously and nationalised as Régie Nationale des Usines Renault ^[20] — without compensation.^[21]

United Kingdom[link]

After his victory in 1066, William the Conqueror seized virtually all land in England. Although he maintained absolute power over the land, he granted fiefs to landholders who served as stewards, paying fees and providing military services. During the Hundred Years War in the 14th century, Edward III used the Crown's right of purveyance for massive expropriations. Chapter 28 of the Magna Carta required that immediate cash payment be made for expropriations. As the king's power was broken down in the ensuing centuries, tenants were regarded as holding ownership rights rather than merely possessory rights over their land. In 1427, a statute was passed granting commissioners of sewers in Lincolnshire the power to take land without compensation. After the early 16th century, however, Parliamentary takings of land for roads, bridges, etc. generally did require compensation. The common practice was to pay 10 per cent more than the assessed value. However, as the voting franchise was expanded to include more non-landowners, the bonus was eliminated.

Allodial title is the title to land generally held in fee simple by an individual or group that is sovereign on that land. Thus, in English law, only the monarch holds allodial title. All others are tenants of the sovereign through their feudal vassalages. Sovereigns generally gain allodial title either by grant of another sovereign to such title, or through right of conquest.

In England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that follow the principles of English law, the related term compulsory purchase is used. The landowner is compensated with a price agreed or stipulated by an appropriate person. Where agreement on price cannot be achieved, the value of the taken land is determined by the Lands Tribunal, a court consisting of one barrister and two chartered surveyors. The operative law is a patchwork of statutes and case law. The principal Acts are the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, the Land Compensation Act 1961, the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, the Land Compensation Act 1973, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, part IX of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Germany[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany states in its Article 14 (3) the "an expropriation is only allowed for the public good" and just compensation must be made. It also provides for the right to have the amount of the compensation checked by a court.

Italy[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Esproprio, or more formally espropriazione per pubblica utilità (literally "expropriation for public utility") in Italy takes place within the frame of civil law. The law regulating expropriation is the D.P.R. n.327 of 2001,^[22] amended by D.Lgs. n.302 of 2002;^[23] it supersedes the old expropriation law, the Royal Decree n.2359 of 1865. Also other national and regional laws may apply. The general provisions for the expropriation stem from article 42 of the Italian Constitution and article 834 of the Codice Civile. Expropriation can be total (the whole property is expropriated) or partial; permanent or temporary.

Nazionalizzazione ("nationalization"), instead, is provided for by article 43 of the Constitution; it transfers to governmental authority and property a whole industrial sector, if it is deemed to be a natural or de facto monopoly, and an essential service of public utility. The most famous nationalization in Italy was the 1962 nationalization of the electrical power sector.

Australia[link]

In Australia, section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution permits the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws."^[24] This has been construed meaning that just compensation may not always include monetary or proprietary recompense, rather it is for the court to determine what is just. It may be necessary to imply a need for compensation in the interests of justice, lest the law be invalidated.^[25]

Property subject to resumption is not restricted to real estate as authority from the Federal Court has extended the states' power to resume property to any form of physical property.^{[citation needed]} For the purposes of section 51(xxxi), money is not property which may be compulsorily acquired.^{[citation needed]}. A statutory right to sue has been considered "property" under this section.^[26]

The Commonwealth must also derive some benefit from the property acquired, that is, the Commonwealth can "only legislate for the acquisition of Property for particular purposes".^[27] Accordingly, the power does not extend to allow legislation designed merely to seek to extinguish the previous owner's title.^[28] The states and territories' powers of resumption on the other hand are not so limited. The section 43(1) of the Lands Acquisition Act 1998 (NT) grants the Minister the power to acquire land 'for any purpose whatever'.^[29] The High Court of Australia interpreted this provision literally, relieving the Territory government of any public purpose limitation on the power.^[30] This finding permitted the Territory government to acquire land subject to Native Title, effectively extinguishing the Native Title interest in the land. As noted by Kirby J in dissent and a number of commentators, this represents a missed opportunity to comment on the exceptional nature of powers of resumption exercised in the absence of a public purpose limitation.^[31]

The term resumption is a reflection of the fact that, as a matter of Australian law, all land was originally owned by the Crown before it was sold, leased or granted ^[32] and that, through the act of compulsory acquisition, the Crown is "resuming" possession.

South America[link]

Chile[link]

Art. 19, Nº 24, of the Chilean Constitution establishes that, "No one, in any case, can be deprived of its ownership, the property of such ownership or any of the essential attributes or faculties of the ownership, except by a general or special law that authorizes the expropriation by the cause of public utility or national interest, as qualified by the legislator. The expropriated will be able to claim over the legality of the expropriatorial act before regular Courts and will always have the right to an indemnification for the patrimonial damage effectively caused, which will be established by an amiable agreement o by a sentence handed down according to law for said Courts."

The vast majority of expropriated owners accept the amount of the indemnification, which usually is in line with real estate market values.^{[citation needed]}

Asia[link]

India[link]

The Constitution originally provided for the right to property under Articles 19 and 31. Article 19 guaranteed to all citizens the right to 'acquire, hold and dispose of property'. Article 31 provided that "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." It also provided that compensation would be paid to a person whose property had been 'taken possession of or acquired' for public purposes. In addition, both the state government as well as the union (federal) government were empowered to enact laws for the "acquisition or requisition of property" (Schedule VII, Entry 42, List III). It is this provision that has been interpreted as being the source of the state's 'eminent domain' powers.^[33]

The provisions relating to the right to property were changed a number of times. The 44th amendment act of 1978 deleted the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights.^[34] A new article, Article 300-A, was added to the constitution which provided that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law". Thus, if a legislature makes a law depriving a person of his property, there would be no obligation on the part of the State to pay anything as compensation. The aggrieved person shall have no right to move the court under Article 32. Thus, the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, though it is still a constitutional right. If the government appears to have acted unfairly, the action can be challenged in a court of law by citizens.^[35]

The liberalisation of the economy and the Government's initiative to set up special economic zones have led to many protests by farmers and have opened up a debate on the reinstatement of the fundamental right to private property.^[36]

Pakistan[link]

Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the government has the power to compulsorily acquire private land at the prevailing market rate for public purposes such as roads, highways, railways, dams, airports, etc.

People's Republic of China[link]

Other countries[link]

Many countries recognize eminent domain to a much lesser extent than the English-speaking world or do not recognize it at all. Japan, for instance, has very weak eminent domain powers, as evidenced by the high-profile opposition to the expansion of Narita International Airport, and the disproportionately large amounts of financial inducement given to residents on sites slated for redevelopment in return for their agreement to leave, one well-known recent case being that of Roppongi Hills.

There are other countries such as the People's Republic of China that practice eminent domain whenever it is convenient to make space for new communities and government structures. Singapore practices eminent domain under the Land Acquisitions Act which allows it to carry out its Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme for urban renewal. The Amendments to the Land Titles Act allowed property to be purchased for purposes of urban renewal against an owner sharing a collective title if the majority of the other owners wishes to sell and the minority did not. Thus, eminent domain often invokes concerns of majoritarianism.

Since the 1990s, the Zimbabwean government under Robert Mugabe has seized a great deal of land and homes of mainly white farmers in the course of the land reform movement in Zimbabwe. The government argued that such land reform was necessary to redistribute the land to Zimbabweans dispossessed of their lands during colonialism.^[37]

Examples[link]

• Controversy on the Delaware: A Look Upstream at the Tocks Island Dam Project
• United States v. Carmack
• United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company 160 U.S. 668 (1896)
• Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)
• Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984)
• Norwood, Ohio v. Horney
• Kelo v. City of New London

In popular culture[link]

As a controversial issue, compulsory acquisition has been a feature of movies and other pieces of fiction for many years.

Instances of compulsory acquisition in literature and films include The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where first Arthur Dent's home is acquired for the building of a bypass road and then the Earth is acquired (demolished) to make way for a hyperspace bypass; and The Castle, an Australian film, where the Kerrigans' home is sought to be acquired to allow for an airport extension.

In Stephen King's novel Roadwork, published in 1981, the protagonist's house is purchased to make way for a road extension.

See also[link]

• Public use
• Navigable servitude
• Water law
• Land bonds

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Dana Berliner, Opening the Floodgates; Eminent Domain Abuse in a Post-Kelo World, Institute for Justice, June 2006. Available online [1].
• California Eminent Domain Report, Nossaman LLP, Launched October 2009 continuously updated. Available online [2]
• Redevelopment Wrecks; 20 Failed Projects Involving Eminent Domain Abuse, Institute for Justice, June 2006. Available online [3].
• Myths and Realities of Eminent Domain Abuse, Institute for Justice, June 2006. Available online [4].
• Steven Greenhut, Abuse Of Power: How The Government Misuses Eminent Domain, Seven Locks Press, June, 2004, trade paperback, 312 pages, ISBN 1-931643-37-7
• Joshua U. Galperin, A Warning To States, Accepting this Invitation May be Hazardous to Your Health (Safety and Public Welfare): An Analysis of Post-Kelo Legislative Activity. 31 Vermont Law Review 663 (2007).
• Aaron Pirnack, So Long, and Thanks for Playing: Small Business Fair Compensation and Eminent Domain
• Dana Berliner, Public Power, Private Gain, Institute for Justice, April 2003. Available online [5].
• A.J. Hazarabedian, California Eminent Domain Handbook, California Eminent Domain Law Group, June 2005. Available free online [6].
• John Ryskamp, The Eminent Domain Revolt: Changing Perceptions in a New Constitutional Epoch, New York: Algora Publishing, 2006.
• Just Compensation, A Monthly Report on Condemnation Cases, Gideon Kanner, Editor, Published monthly since 1957.
• Property Owners' Rights Handbook: Your Rights and Remedies Under the Eminent Domain Law, Sullivan, Workman & Dee, LLP, 2005. Available online [7].
• Bulldozed: 'Kelo,' Emiment Domain and the American Lust for Land, Carla T. Main, Encounter Books, August 2007.
• NCSL: Eminent Domain. Available online [8]
• NCSL: State Case Law Prohibiting Eminent Domain for Economic Development, August 2005. Available online [9]
• New Jersey Eminent Domain Law [10]
• Blog, www.Gideonstrumpet.info

Jason Statham
Jason Statham, 2011
Born	(1967-09-12) 12 September 1967 (age 44)[1] Shirebrook, Derbyshire, England
Occupation	Actor
Years active	1998–present

Jason Statham ( /ˈsteɪθəm/;^[2][3] born 12 September 1967)^{[4][5][6][7][8][9]} is an English actor and former diver, known for his roles in the Guy Ritchie crime films Revolver, Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Statham appeared in supporting roles in several American films, such as The Italian Job, as well as playing the lead role in The Transporter, Death Race, Crank, The Bank Job and War (opposite martial arts star Jet Li). Statham also appeared alongside established action film actors Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren in The Expendables. He usually performs his own fight scenes and stunts.^[10]

Early life[link]

Statham was born in Shirebrook, Derbyshire, the son of Eileen (née Yates) and Barry Statham, a lounge singer.^{[7][11][12][13]} He moved to Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, where he chose not to follow his father's career working the local market stalls, and decided to pursue the arts. He grew up with football player Vinnie Jones, alongside whom he would later go on to act. Jones introduced him to football, and Statham went on to play for the local grammar school (1978–83), which he had attended since the age of eleven, but his real passion was diving.^{[citation needed]} He practised daily in perfecting his diving techniques – in particular, he finished 12th in the World Championships in 1992.^[14] He was also a member of Britain's National Diving Squad for twelve years.^[15][16]

Statham's life in the media began when he was spotted by a talent agent specialising in athletes while training at London's Crystal Palace National Sports Centre. Afterwards, he became a model for the clothing brand French Connection.

Career[link]

Statham in 2007

While working as a model for French Connection (FCUK), he was introduced to fledgling British director Guy Ritchie^[17] who was developing a film project and needed to fill the role of a street-wise con artist. After learning about Statham's past as a black market salesman, Ritchie cast him to play the role of "Bacon" in his 1998 Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.^[18] The movie was well received by both critics and audiences, and helped catapult Statham into the public eye. Statham's second collaboration with Ritchie came in the 2000 film Snatch, playing the role of "Turkish". Cast alongside popular actors Brad Pitt, Dennis Farina and Benicio del Toro, and with the movie earning more than $80 million in box-office revenue, Statham was able to break into Hollywood and appeared in two movies in 2001: Ghosts of Mars and The One.

Statham was offered more film roles and in 2002 was cast as the lead role of driver Frank Martin in the action movie The Transporter, in which his background in martial arts enabled him to do most of his own stunts.^{[citation needed]} He has studied Wing Chun kung fu, karate, and kickboxing.^[19] The film spawned two sequels, Transporter 2 (2005) and Transporter 3 (2008). He also played in supporting roles in Mean Machine (2002), The Italian Job (2003) (in which he played Handsome Rob), and Cellular (2004) in which he played the lead villain. In 2005, Statham was once again cast by Ritchie to star in his new project, Revolver, which was a critical and box office failure.^[20] He also played a dramatic role in the independent drama London in 2006. In 2006 he played the lead role in Crank. Statham compares his role in Crank to his real life in the September 2006 issue of Maxim. The success of Crank led to a sequel in 2009 titled Crank: High Voltage.

In 2008, Statham starred in the British crime thriller The Bank Job which was both a critical and box office success. In 2008, American film critic Armond White hailed Statham's ascension as the leading international action film star. On the occasion of Death Race, White championed Statham's "best track record of any contemporary movie star."^[21] Later in 2008, White praised Statham's Transporter 3 as a great example of kinetic pop art.

Statham in 2006

In 2009, Statham started to develop a new movie written by David Peoples and Janet Peoples (Twelve Monkeys). Statham stated "We've got a movie we're trying to do, written by David Peoples and Janet Peoples, in the vein of an old film, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. It’s not a remake or anything, but it's a little bit like that, about relationships and how greed contaminates the relationships these three people have. The working title is The Grabbers."^[22]

In 2010, Statham appeared alongside fellow action stars Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Jet Li and Mickey Rourke, among others in The Expendables. Statham plays Lee Christmas, a former SAS soldier and expert at close quarters combat using knives. In 2011, Statham starred in the remake of the 1972 Charles Bronson film, The Mechanic, and returned to British film in the police drama Blitz.

He also starred in the action film Killer Elite. The film was based on real events, which were the subject of Sir Ranulph Fiennes' fictional novel The Feather Men. Statham played an assassin named Danny who comes out of retirement to save an old friend, who was played by Robert De Niro.^[23] In August 2011, he is to begin filming Parker, for director Taylor Hackford; Statham will star as Parker, the criminal antihero previously played by Mel Gibson in 1999's Payback and by Lee Marvin in 1967's Point Blank.^[24]

Personal life[link]

Statham was in a seven year relationship with model Kelly Brook, until 2004.^[25][26] Since April 2010, he has been dating Victoria's Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley.^[27]

Filmography[link]

Box office performance[link]

Since 1998, Statham has appeared in over twenty films. Several have been box office hits, such as Snatch and The Bank Job. He has starred in two film series, The Transporter and Crank. The films he has been in have grossed a total of more than $1 billion USD at the box office, with the highest individual film being The Expendables.

Video game voice-overs[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

	England portal
	Biography portal
	Films portal

• Jason Statham at the Internet Movie Database

Wangari Maathai
Wangari Maathai in 2006
Born	Wangari Muta (1940-04-01)1 April 1940 Ihithe village, Tetu division, Nyeri District, Kenya
Died	25 September 2011(2011-09-25) (aged 71) Nairobi, Kenya
Ethnicity	Kikuyu
Citizenship	Kenyan
Education	B.S. biology M.S. biological sciences Ph.D. veterinary anatomy
Alma mater	Mount St. Scholastica College University of Pittsburgh University College of Nairobi
Occupation	Environmentalist, Political activist
Known for	Green Belt Movement
Awards	Nobel Peace Prize

Wangari Muta Maathai (1 April 1940 – 25 September 2011) was a Kenyan environmental and political activist. She was educated in the United States at Mount St. Scholastica and the University of Pittsburgh, as well as the University of Nairobi in Kenya. In the 1970s, Maathai founded the Green Belt Movement, an environmental non-governmental organization focused on the planting of trees, environmental conservation, and women's rights. In 1986, she was awarded the Right Livelihood Award, and in 2004, she became the first African woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for "her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace." Maathai was an elected member of Parliament and served as assistant minister for Environment and Natural Resources in the government of President Mwai Kibaki between January 2003 and November 2005. Furthermore she was an Honorary Councillor of the World Future Council. In 2011, Maathai died of complications from ovarian cancer.

Early life and education 1940–1971[link]

On 1 April 1940, Maathai was born in the village of Ihithe, Nyeri District, in the central highlands of the colony of Kenya. Her family was Kikuyu, the most populous ethnic group in Kenya, and had lived in the area for several generations.^[1] Around 1943, Maathai's family relocated to a white-owned farm in the Rift Valley, near the town of Nakuru, where her father had found work.^[2] Late in 1947, she returned to Ihithe with her mother, as two of her brothers were attending primary school in the village, and there was no schooling available on the farm where her father worked. Her father remained at the farm.^[3] Shortly afterward, at the age of eight, she joined her brothers at Ihithe Primary School.^[4]

At age eleven, Maathai moved to St. Cecilia's Intermediate Primary School, a boarding school at the Mathari Catholic Mission in Nyeri.^[5] Maathai studied at St. Cecilia's for four years. During this time, she became fluent in English and converted to Catholicism. She also was involved with the Christian society known as the Legion of Mary, whose members attempted "to serve God by serving fellow human beings."^[6] Studying at St. Cecilia's, Maathai was sheltered from the ongoing Mau Mau Uprising, which forced her mother to move from their homestead to an emergency village in Ihithe.^[7] When she completed her studies there in 1956, she was rated first in her class, and was granted admission to the only Catholic high school for girls in Kenya, Loreto High School Limuru in Limuru.^[8]

After graduating from Loreto-Limuru in 1959, she planned to attend the University of East Africa in Kampala, Uganda. However, the end of the colonial period of East Africa was nearing, and Kenyan politicians, such as Tom Mboya, were proposing ways to make education in Western nations available to promising students. John F. Kennedy, then a United States Senator, agreed to fund such a program through the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation, initiating what became known as the Kennedy Airlift or Airlift Africa. Maathai became one of about three hundred Kenyans chosen to study at American universities in September 1960.^[9]

Maathai received a scholarship to study at Mount St. Scholastica College (now Benedictine College), in Atchison, Kansas. At Mount St. Scholastica, she majored in biology, with minors in chemistry and German.^[10] After receiving her bachelor of science degree in 1964, she studied at the University of Pittsburgh for a master's degree in biology. Her graduate studies there were funded by the Africa-America Institute,^[11] and during her time in Pittsburgh, she first experienced environmental restoration, as local environmentalists pushed to rid the city of air pollution.^[12] In January 1966, Maathai was awarded her MSc in biological sciences,^[13] and was appointed to a position as research assistant to a professor of zoology at University College of Nairobi.^[14]

Upon her return to Kenya, Maathai dropped her Christian name, preferring to be known by her birth name, Wangari Muta.^[15] When she arrived at the university to start her new job, she was informed that it had been given to someone else. Maathai believed this was because of gender and tribal bias.^[16] After a job search lasting two months, Professor Reinhold Hofmann, from the University of Giessen in Germany, offered her a job as a research assistant in the microanatomy section of the newly established Department of Veterinary Anatomy in the School of Veterinary Medicine at University College of Nairobi.^[17] In April 1966, she met Mwangi Mathai, another Kenyan who had studied in America, who would later become her husband.^[18] She also rented a small shop in the city, and established a general store, at which her sisters worked. In 1967, at the urging of Professor Hofmann, she traveled to the University of Giessen in Germany in pursuit of a doctorate. She studied both at Giessen and the University of Munich.

In the spring of 1969, she returned to Nairobi to continue her studies at the University College of Nairobi as an assistant lecturer. In May, she and Mwangi Mathai were married.^[19] Later that year, she became pregnant with her first child, and her husband campaigned for a seat in Parliament, narrowly losing. During the course of the election, Tom Mboya, who had been instrumental in founding the program which sent her overseas, was assassinated. This led to President Kenyatta effectually ending multi-party democracy in Kenya. Shortly after, her first son, Waweru, was born.^[20] In 1971, she became the first Eastern African woman to receive a Ph.D., when she was granted a Doctorate of Anatomy^[13] from the University College of Nairobi, which became the University of Nairobi the following year. She completed her dissertation on the development and differentiation of gonads in bovines.^[21] Her daughter, Wanjira, was born in December 1971.

Activism and political life 1972–1977[link]

Maathai continued to teach at Nairobi, becoming a senior lecturer in anatomy in 1974, chair of the Department of Veterinary Anatomy in 1976 and associate professor in 1977. She was the first woman in Nairobi appointed to any of these positions.^[22] During this time, she campaigned for equal benefits for the women working on the staff of the university, going so far as to attempt to turn the academic staff association of the university into a union, in order to negotiate for benefits. The courts denied this bid, but many of her demands for equal benefits were later met.^[23]

In addition to her work at the University of Nairobi, Maathai became involved in a number of civic organizations in the early 1970s. She was a member of the Nairobi branch of the Kenya Red Cross Society, becoming its director in 1973. She was a member of the Kenya Association of University Women. Following the establishment of the Environment Liaison Centre in 1974, Maathai was asked to be a member of the local board, eventually becoming the chair of the board. The Environment Liaison Centre worked to promote the participation of non-governmental organizations in the work of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), whose headquarters was established in Nairobi following the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972. Maathai also joined the National Council of Women of Kenya (NCWK).^[24] Through her work at these various volunteer associations, it became evident to Maathai that the root of most of Kenya's problems was environmental degradation.^[25]

In 1974, Maathai's family expanded to include her third child, Muta. Her husband again campaigned for a seat in Parliament, hoping to represent the Lang'ata constituency, and won. During the course of his campaign, he had promised to find jobs to limit the rising unemployment in Kenya. These promises led Maathai to connect her ideas of environmental restoration to providing jobs for the unemployed, and led to the founding of Envirocare Ltd., a business that involved the planting of trees to conserve the environment, involving ordinary people in the process. This led to the planting of her first tree nursery, collocated with a government tree nursery in Karura Forest. Envirocare ran into multiple problems, primarily dealing with funding. The project failed, however, through conversations concerning Envirocare and her work at the Environment Liaison Centre, UNEP made it possible to send Maathai to the first UN conference on human settlements, known as Habitat I, in June 1976.^[26]

In 1977, Maathai spoke to the NCWK concerning her attendance at Habitat I. She proposed further tree planting, which the council supported. On 5 June 1977, marking World Environment Day, the NCWK marched in a procession from Kenyatta International Conference Centre in downtown Nairobi to Kamukunji park on the outskirts of the city where they planted seven trees in honor of historical community leaders. This was the first "Green Belt" which was first known as the "Save the Land Harambee" and then became the Green Belt Movement.^[27] Maathai encouraged the women of Kenya to plant tree nurseries throughout the country, searching nearby forests for seeds to grow trees native to the area. She agreed to pay the women a small stipend for each seedling which was later planted elsewhere.^[28]

Personal problems 1977–1979[link]

Maathai and her husband, Mwangi Mathai, separated in 1977. After a lengthy separation, Mwangi filed for divorce in 1979. Mwangi was said to have believed Wangari was "too strong-minded for a woman" and that he was "unable to control her". In addition to naming her as "cruel" in court filings, he publicly accused her of adultery with another Member of Parliament,^[29] which in turn was thought to cause his high blood pressure and the judge ruled in Mwangi's favour. Shortly after the trial, in an interview with Viva magazine, Maathai referred to the judge as either incompetent or corrupt.^[29] The interview later led the judge to charge Maathai with contempt of court. She was found guilty and sentenced to six months in jail. After three days in Lang'ata Women's Prison in Nairobi, her lawyer formulated a statement which the court found sufficient for her release. Shortly after the divorce, her former husband sent a letter via his lawyer demanding that Maathai drop his surname but she instead chose to add an extra "a" instead.^[30][31]

The divorce had been costly, and with lawyers' fees and the loss of her husband's income, Maathai found it difficult to provide for herself and her children on her university wages. An opportunity arose to work for the Economic Commission for Africa through the United Nations Development Programme. As this job required extended travel throughout Africa and was based primarily in Lusaka, Zambia, she was unable to bring her children with her. Maathai chose to send them to her ex-husband and take the job. While she visited them regularly, they lived with their father until 1985.^[32]

Political problems 1979–1982[link]

In 1979, shortly after the divorce, Maathai ran for the position of chairman of the National Council of Women of Kenya (NCWK). The NCWK was an umbrella organization consisting of many different women's organizations in the country. The new President of Kenya, Daniel arap Moi, was attempting to limit the amount of influence those of the Kikuyu ethnicity held in the country, including in volunteer civic organizations such as the NCWK. She lost this election by three votes, but was overwhelmingly chosen to be the vice-chairman of the organization. The following year, Maathai again ran for chairman of the NCWK. Again she was opposed, she believes, by the government. When it became apparent that Maathai was going to win the election, Maendeleo Ya Wanawake, a member organization which represented a majority of Kenya's rural women and whose leader was close to arap Moi, withdrew from the NCWK. Maathai was then elected chairman of the NCWK unopposed. However, Maendeleo Ya Wanawake came to receive a majority of the financial support for women's programs in the country, and NCWK was left virtually bankrupt. Future funding was much more difficult to come by, but the NCWK survived by increasing its focus on the environment and making its presence and work known. Maathai continued to be reelected to serve as chairman of the organization every year until she retired from the position in 1987.^[33]

In 1982, the Parliamentary seat representing her home region of Nyeri was open, and Maathai decided to campaign for the seat. As required by law, she resigned her position with the University of Nairobi to campaign for office. The courts decided that she was ineligible to run for office because she had not re-registered to vote in the last presidential election in 1979. Maathai believed this to be false and illegal and brought the matter to court. The court was to meet at nine in the morning, and if she received a favourable ruling, was required to present her candidacy papers in Nyeri by three in the afternoon that same day. The judge disqualified her from running on a technicality. When she requested her job back, she was denied. She believes this was because President Daniel arap Moi, who she deemed to be against her, was also the Chancellor of the University of Nairobi. As she lived in university housing and was no longer a member of staff, she was evicted from her home.^[34]

Green Belt Movement[link]

Maathai moved into a small home she had purchased years before, and focused on the NCWK while she searched for employment. In the course of her work through the NCWK, she was approached by Wilhelm Elsrud, executive director of the Norwegian Forestry Society. He wished to partner with the Green Belt Movement and offered her the position of coordinator. Employed again, Maathai poured her efforts into the Green Belt Movement. Along with the partnership for the Norwegian Forestry Society, the movement had also received "seed money" from the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Women. These funds allowed for the expansion of the movement, for hiring additional employees to oversee the operations, and for continuing to pay a small stipend to the women who planted seedlings throughout the country. It also allowed her to refine the operations of the movement, paying a small stipend to the women's husbands and sons who were literate and able to keep accurate records of seedlings planted.^[35]

In 1985, the UN held the third global women's conference in Nairobi. During the conference, Maathai arranged seminars and presentations to describe the work the Green Belt Movement was doing in Kenya. She escorted delegates to see nurseries and plant trees. She met Peggy Snyder, the head of UNIFEM, and Helvi Sipilä, the first woman appointed a UN assistant secretary general. The conference helped to expand funding for the Green Belt Movement and led to the movement's establishing itself outside of Kenya. In 1986, with funding from UNEP, the movement expanded throughout Africa and led to the foundation of the Pan-African Green Belt Network. Forty-five representatives from fifteen African countries travelled to Kenya over the next three years to learn how to set up similar programs in their own countries to combat desertification, deforestation, water crises, and rural hunger. The attention the movement received in the media led to Maathai's being honoured with numerous awards. The government of Kenya, however, demanded that the Green Belt Movement separate from the NCWK, believing the latter should focus solely on women's issues, not the environment. Therefore, in 1987, Maathai stepped down as chairman of the NCWK and focused her attention on the newly separate non-governmental organization.^[36]

Government intervention[link]

In the latter half of the 1980s, the Kenyan government came down against Maathai and the Green Belt Movement. The single-party democracy was against many of the stances the movement taught pertaining to rights and democracy. The government invoked a colonial-era law prohibiting groups of more than nine people from meeting without first obtaining a government license. In 1988, the Green Belt Movement carried out pro-democracy activities such as registering voters for the election and pressing for constitutional reform and freedom of expression. The government, however, was not interested in reform and carried out electoral fraud in the elections to maintain power.^[37]

In October 1989, Maathai learned of a plan to construct the 60-story Kenya Times Media Trust Complex in Uhuru Park. The complex was intended to house the headquarters of KANU, the Kenya Times newspaper, a trading centre, offices, an auditorium, galleries, shopping malls, and parking space for two thousand cars. The plan also included a large statue of President arap Moi. Maathai wrote many letters in protest: the Kenya Times, the Office of the President, the Nairobi city commission, the provincial commissioner, the minister for environment and natural resources, the executive directors of UNEP and the Environment Liaison Centre International, the executive director of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the ministry of public works, and the permanent secretary in the department of international security and administration all received letters. She also wrote to Sir John Johnson, the British high commissioner in Nairobi, urging him to intervene with Robert Maxwell, a major shareholder in the project, equating the construction of a tower in Uhuru Park to such construction in Hyde Park or Central Park and maintaining that it could not be tolerated.^[38]

The government refused to respond to her inquiries and protests, instead responding through the media that Maathai was "a crazy woman"; that denying the project in Uhuru Park would take more than a small portion of public park land; and proclaiming the project as a "fine and magnificent work of architecture" opposed by only the "ignorant few." On 8 November 1989, Parliament expressed outrage at Maathai's actions, complaining of her letters to foreign organizations and calling the Green Belt Movement a bogus organization and its members "a bunch of divorcees". They suggested that if Maathai was so comfortable writing to Europeans, perhaps she should go live in Europe.^[39]

Despite Maathai's protests, as well as popular protest growing throughout the city, ground was broken at Uhuru Park for construction of the complex on 15 November 1989. Maathai sought an injunction in the Kenya High Court to halt construction, but the case was thrown out on 11 December. In his first public comments pertaining to the project, President arap Moi said those who opposed the project had "insects in their heads." On 12 December, in Uhuru Park, during a speech celebrating independence from the British, President Moi suggested Maathai be a proper woman in the African tradition and respect men and be quiet.^[40] She was forced by the government to vacate her office, and the Green Belt Movement was moved into her home. The government then audited the Green Belt Movement in an apparent attempt to shut it down. Despite all this, her protests, the government's response — and the media coverage it garnered — led foreign investors to cancel the project in January 1990.^[41][42]

In January 1992, it came to the attention of Maathai and other pro-democracy activists that a list of people were targeted for assassination and that a government-sponsored coup was possible. Maathai's name was on the list. The pro-democracy group, known as the Forum for the Restoration of Democracy (FORD), presented its information to the media, calling for a general election. Later that day, Maathai received a warning that one of their members had been arrested. Maathai decided to barricade herself in her home. Shortly after, police arrived and surrounded the house. She was besieged for three days before police cut through the bars she had installed on her windows, came in, and arrested her. She and the other pro-democracy activists who had been arrested were charged with spreading malicious rumours, sedition and treason. After a day and a half in jail, they were brought to a hearing and released on bail. A variety of international organizations and eight senators (including Al Gore and Edward M. Kennedy) put pressure on the government of Kenya to substantiate the charges against the pro-democracy activists or risk damaging relations with the United States. In November 1992, the government of Kenya dropped the charges.^[43]

On 28 February 1992, while released on bail, Maathai and others took part in a hunger strike in a corner of Uruhu Park, which they labelled Freedom Corner, to pressure the government to release political prisoners. After four days of the hunger strike, on March 3, 1992, the police forcibly removed the protesters. Maathai and three others were knocked unconscious by police and hospitalized.^[44] President Daniel arap Moi called her "a mad woman" who is "a threat to the order and security of the country".^[45] The attack drew international criticism. The US State Department said it was "deeply concerned" by the violence and by the forcible removal of the hunger strikers.^[46] When the political prisoners were not released, the protesters — mostly mothers of those in prison — moved their protest to All Saints Cathedral, the seat of the Anglican Archbishop in Kenya, across from Uhuru Park. The protest there continued, with Maathai contributing frequently, until early 1993, when the prisoners were finally released.^[47]

During this time, Maathai was being recognized with various awards internationally, but the government of Kenya did not appreciate her work. In 1991 she received the Goldman Environmental Prize in San Francisco and the Hunger Project's Africa Prize for Leadership in London. CNN aired a three-minute segment concerning the Goldman prize, but when it aired in Kenya, that segment had been edited out. In June 1992, during the lengthy protest at Uhuru Park, both Maathai and President arap Moi travelled to Rio de Janeiro for the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit). The government of Kenya accused Maathai of inciting women and encouraging them to strip at Freedom Corner, urging that she not be allowed to speak at the summit. In spite of this, Maathai was chosen to be a chief spokesperson at the summit.^[48]

Push for democracy[link]

During the first multi-party election of Kenya, in 1992, Maathai strove to unite the opposition and promote free and fair elections in Kenya. The Forum for the Restoration of Democracy (FORD) had fractured into FORD-Kenya (led by Oginga Odinga) and FORD-Asili (led by Kenneth Matiba); Mwai Kibaki, the former vice president, had left the ruling Kenya African National Union (KANU) party, and formed the Democratic Party. Maathai and many others believed such a fractured opposition would lead to KANU's retaining control of the country, so they formed the Middle Ground Group in an effort to unite the opposition. Maathai was chosen to serve as its chairperson. Also during the election, Maathai and like-minded opposition members formed the Movement for Free and Fair Elections. Despite their efforts, the opposition did not unite, and the ruling KANU party used intimidation and state-held media to win the election, retaining control of parliament.^[49]

The following year, tribal clashes occurred throughout Kenya. Maathai believed they were incited by the government, who had warned of stark consequences to multi-party democracy. Maathai travelled with friends and the press to areas of violence in order to encourage them to cease fighting. With the Green Belt Movement she planted "trees of peace," but before long her actions were opposed by the government. The conflict areas were labeled as "no go zones", and in February 1993 the president claimed that Maathai had masterminded a distribution of leaflets inciting Kikuyus to attack Kalenjins. After her friend and supporter Dr. Makanga was kidnapped, Maathai chose to go into hiding. While in hiding, Maathai was invited to a meeting in Tokyo of the Green Cross International, an environmental organization recently founded by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. When Maathai responded that she could not attend as she did not believe the government would allow her to leave the country and she was in hiding, Gorbachev pressured the government of Kenya to allow her to travel freely. President arap Moi denied limiting her travel, and she was allowed to leave the country, although too late for the meeting in Tokyo. Maathai was again recognized internationally, and she flew to Scotland to receive the Edinburgh Medal in April 1993. In May she went to Chicago to receive the Jane Addams International Women's Leadership Award, and in June she attended the UN's World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna.^[50]

During the elections of 1997, Maathai again wished to unite the opposition in order to defeat the ruling party. In November, less than two months before the election, she decided that she would run for parliament and for president as a candidate of the Liberal Party. Her intentions were widely questioned in the press; many believed she should simply stick to running the Green Belt Movement and stay out of politics. On the day of the election, a rumour that Maathai had withdrawn from the election and endorsed another candidate was printed in the media. Maathai garnered few votes and lost the election.^[51]

In the summer of 1998, Maathai learned of a government plan to privatize large areas of public land in the Karura Forest, just outside Nairobi, and give it to political supporters. Maathai protested against the privatization through letters to the government and the press. She went with the Green Belt Movement to Karura Forest, planting trees and protesting the destruction of the forest. On 8 January 1999, a group of protesters including Maathai, six opposition MPs, journalists, international observers, and Green Belt members and supporters returned to the forest to plant a tree in protest. The entry to the forest was guarded by a large group of men. When she tried to plant a tree in an area that had been designated to be cleared for a golf course, the group was attacked. Many of the protesters were injured, including Maathai, four MPs, some of the journalists, and German environmentalists. When she reported the attack to the police, they refused to return with her to the forest to arrest her attackers. However, the attack had been filmed by Maathai's supporters, and the event provoked international outrage.^[41][52] Student protests broke out throughout Nairobi, and some of these groups were violently broken up by the police. Protests continued until 16 August 1999, when the president announced that he was banning all allocation of public land.^[53]

In 2001, the government was again planning to take public forest land and give it to its supporters. While protesting the land-grab and collecting petition signatures on 7 March 2001, in Wang'uru village near Mount Kenya, Maathai was again arrested. The following day, following international and popular protest at her arrest, she was released without being charged. On 7 July 2001, shortly after planting trees at Freedom Corner in Uhuru Park in Nairobi to commemorate Saba Saba Day, Maathai was again arrested. Later that evening, she was again released without being charged.^[54] In January 2002, Maathai returned to teaching as the Dorothy McCluskey Visiting Fellow for Conservation at the Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. She remained there until June 2002, teaching a course on sustainable development focused on the work of the Green Belt Movement.^[55]

Election to parliament[link]

Upon her return to Kenya, Maathai again campaigned for parliament in the 2002 elections, this time as a candidate of the National Rainbow Coalition, the umbrella organization which finally united the opposition. On 27 December 2002, the Rainbow Coalition defeated the ruling party Kenya African National Union, and in her constituency Maathai won with an overwhelming 98% of the vote.^[56] In January 2003, she was appointed Assistant Minister in the Ministry for Environment and Natural Resources and served in that capacity until November 2005.^[13] She founded the Mazingira Green Party of Kenya in 2003 to allow candidates to run on a platform of conservation as embodied by the Green Belt Movement. It is a member of the Federation of Green Parties of Africa and the Global Greens.^[57]

[edit] Nobel Peace Prize 2004

Wangari Maathai was awarded the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize for her "contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace".^[58] She had received a call from Ole Danbolt Mjos, chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, on 8 October informing her of the news.^[59][60] She became the first African woman, and the first environmentalist, to win the prize.

AIDS[link]

Controversy arose when it was reported by The Standard that Maathai had claimed HIV/AIDS was "deliberately created by Western scientists to decimate the African population."^[61] Maathai denied making the allegations, but The Standard has stood by its reports.^[61]

In a 2004 interview with Time, in response to questions concerning that report, Maathai replied, "I have no idea who created AIDS and whether it is a biological agent or not. But I do know things like that don't come from the moon. I have always thought that it is important to tell people the truth, but I guess there is some truth that must not be too exposed," and when asked what she meant, she continued, "I'm referring to AIDS. I am sure people know where it came from. And I'm quite sure it did not come from the monkeys."^[62]

In response she issued the following statement:

Later life 2005–2011[link]

Maathai, holding a trophy awarded to her by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights

Maathai and then U.S. Senator Barack Obama in Nairobi in 2006

On 28 March 2005, Maathai was elected the first president of the African Union's Economic, Social and Cultural Council and was appointed a goodwill ambassador for an initiative aimed at protecting the Congo Basin Forest Ecosystem.^[64] In 2006 she was one of the eight flagbearers at the 2006 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony. Also on 21 May 2006, she was awarded an honorary doctorate by and gave the commencement address at Connecticut College. She supported the International Year of Deserts and Desertification program. In November 2006, she spearheaded the United Nations Billion Tree Campaign. Maathai was one of the founders of the Nobel Women's Initiative along with sister Nobel Peace laureates Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan Maguire. Six women representing North America and South America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa decided to bring together their experiences in a united effort for peace with justice and equality. It is the goal of the Nobel Women's Initiative to help strengthen work being done in support of women's rights around the world.^[65]

In August 2006, then United States Senator Barack Obama traveled to Kenya. His father was educated in America through the same program as Maathai. She and the Senator met and planted a tree together in Uhuru Park in Nairobi. Obama called for freedom of the press to be respected, saying, "Press freedom is like tending a garden; it continually has to be nurtured and cultivated. The citizenry has to value it because it's one of those things that can slip away if we're not vigilant." He deplored global ecological losses, singling out President George W. Bush's refusal to join the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its subsidiary, the Kyoto Protocol.^[66]

Maathai was defeated in the Party of National Unity's primary elections for its parliamentary candidates in November 2007 and chose to instead run as the candidate of a smaller party.^[67] She was defeated in the December 2007 parliamentary election. She called for a recount of votes in the presidential election (officially won by Mwai Kibaki, but disputed by the opposition) in her constituency, saying that both sides should feel the outcome was fair and that there were indications of fraud.^[68]

In June 2009, Maathai was named as one of PeaceByPeace.com's first peace heroes.^[69] Until her death, Maathai served on the Eminent Advisory Board^[70] of the Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa (AWEPA).

Wangari Maathai died of complications arising from ovarian cancer while receiving treatment at a Nairobi hospital on 25 September 2011.^[71]

Selected publications[link]

• The Green Belt Movement: sharing the approach and the experience (1985)
• The bottom is heavy too: even with the Green Belt Movement : the Fifth Edinburgh Medal Address (1994)
• Bottle-necks of development in Africa (1995)
• The Canopy of Hope: My Life Campaigning for Africa, Women, and the Environment (2002)
• Unbowed: A Memoir (2006)
• Reclaiming rights and resources women, poverty and environment (2007)
• Rainwater Harvesting (2008)
• State of the world's minorities 2008: events of 2007 (2008)
• The Challenge for Africa (2009)
• Replenishing the Earth (2010) ISBN 978-0-307-59114-2

Honors[link]

• 1984: Right Livelihood Award (a.k.a. "Alternative Nobel Prize")
• 1986: Better World Society Award
• 1987: Global 500 Roll of Honour
• 1991: Goldman Environmental Prize
• 1991: The Hunger Project's Africa Prize for Leadership^[72]
• 1993: Edinburgh Medal (for "Outstanding contribution to Humanity through Science")
• 1993: Jane Addams Leadership Award
• 1993: Benedictine College Offeramus Medal^[73]
• 1994: The Golden Ark Award
• 2001: The Juliet Hollister Award
• 2003: Global Environment Award, World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations
• 2004: Conservation Scientist Award from Columbia University
• 2004: J. Sterling Morton Award
• 2004: Petra Kelly Prize
• 2004: Sophie Prize
• 2004: Nobel Peace Prize
• 2006: Légion d'honneur
• 2007: World Citizenship Award
• 2007: Indira Gandhi Prize
• 2007: Cross of the Order of St. Benedict ^[73]
• 2008: The Elizabeth Blackwell Award from Hobart and William Smith Colleges
• 2009: NAACP Image Award - Chairman's Award (with Al Gore)^[74][75]
• 2009: Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun of Japan^[76][77]
• 2011: The Nichols-Chancellor's Medal awarded by Vanderbilt University^[78]

See also[link]

• Black Nobel Prize laureates
• Furoshiki
• List of female Nobel laureates
• Marion Institute
• Mottainai
• Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD-IV), 2008.
• Women's Environment & Development Organization

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Max Andrews (Ed.): Land, Art: A Cultural Ecology Handbook. London, Royal Society of Arts,^{[dead link]} 2006 ISBN 978-0-901469-57-1 (Interview with Wangari Maathai)
• Wangari Maathai, Unbowed: A Memoir, Knopf, 2006. ISBN 0-307-26348-7
• Wangari Maathai, The Greenbelt Movement: Sharing the Approach and the Experience, Lantern Books, 2003. ISBN 1-59056-040-X
• Wangari Maathai, The Canopy of Hope: My Life Campaigning for Africa, Women, and the Environment, Lantern Books, 2002. ISBN 1-59056-002-7
• Wangari Maathai, Bottom is Heavy Too: Edinburgh Medal Lecture, Edinburgh UP, 1994. ISBN 0-7486-0518-5
• Picture book (fr.), Franck Prévot (text) & Aurélia Fronty (illustrations), Wangari Maathai, la femme qui plante des millions d'arbres, Rue du monde, 2011 (ISBN 978-2-3550-4158-7)

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Wangari Maathai

• Works by or about Wangari Maathai in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Taking Root: The Vision of Wangari Maathai documentary film
• Climate Change TV Video interview with Dr Wangari Muta Maathai. Filmed during the Conference of the Parties meeting in Poznan, Poland, December 2008
• Official Site: The Green Belt Movement and Wangari Maathai
• Maathai Nobel Prize lecture
• Wangari Maathai and the Billion Tree Campaign
• Feature on Wangari Maathai by the International Museum of Women
• Wangari Maathai presents a talk as a part of the Architecture and Climate Change lecture series held by the Royal Institute of British Architects
• The Lantern Books Blog: Lantern and Wangari Maathai (Video)
• Seeds of change planting a path to peace
• Audio: Wangari Maathai in conversation on the BBC World Service discussion programme The Forum
• Nobel Women's Initiative
• A Conversation with Wangari Mathai about the Green Belt Movement