“Governments can and do own intellectual property. ”

There are limits to this. The federal courts have held that the US federal government can not hold a copyright under US law in it’s own work products. I have no idea if that limit has been pushed down to the state/local levels.

But for purposes of IP and Eminent Domain, the real question isn’t “can a city own IP?”

Property rights for real and personal property mostly originate from state law, but IP property rights exist exclusively under federal law.. There is a real (and I believe unsettled) question as to whether a state or local government has the power to seize a “property” right that exists wholly under federal law, even under Eminent Domain.

For example, under the US copyright act a copyright can only be transferred by a written instrument signed by the person transferring the right. Any attempt by a state / local judge under eminent domain to transfer that copyright to the state / local government by court order would be invalid under federal copyright law.

But patent and copyright is already there… And it’s a limited monopoly, not property.

BALTIMORE (AP) — Baltimore’s embattled mayor announced Monday that she is taking an indefinite leave of absence, just as a political scandal intensifies over what critics call a “self-dealing” book-sales arrangement that threatens her political career.

In a letter to the state prosecutor released Monday, Gov. Larry Hogan said allegations facing Pugh and her questionable no-contract arrangements to sell her “Healthy Holly” children’s books are “deeply disturbing.” Hogan said he was particularly concerned about $500,000 in sales over seven years to a university-based health care system “because it has significant continuing ties with the State and receives very substantial public funding.”

More at link: https://apnews.com/f60e09055c474765a8ec1f9b3374ce2c

Yet the Park Heights area surrounding the track has been bad for as long as I can remember. It is not as bad as other areas of the City, but it is terrible.

To me, this is just another case of the City of Baltimore trying to tell a business what it has to do as far as maintenance, upkeep and upgrades, but at the same time failing to show that the City can do the maintenance, upkeep and upgrades to the City taxpayers and citizens expect.

Roads are a disaster. The Police are out of control. The City Council is concerned with social issues rather than tangible issues. Schools are failing.

There is nothing that the City of Baltimore can point to and say “we are doing this well.”

(Other than corruption.)

However, they will try like crazy how to tell other companies how to be run and if the companies won’t listen, they’ll pass laws and regulations to make sure they listen.

It would set an interesting precedent that my prevent further takings such as this.

Basically saying, “If you take the park and name, we will simply not play there anymore.”
I will admit that it would ruin tradition and all, but it may take exactly this kind of action for governments to realize that “we ain’t gonna take it anymore.”

They can take my land and build a school, road, military base, courthouse, road maintenance division equipment storage lot, etc – those uses of land are public use.

They can take my taxi cab or truck and use it to haul soldiers and supplies to the front. That is public use.

They can take my yacht, man it with Coast Guardsmen and send it out on submarine patrol, or lifeguard patrol or drug interdiction….those are public uses.

They can take my steel mill and use it to make armor plates for the government shipyard or tank factory. That is public use.

They can take my patent for the aileron or integrated control system, and use that to design and build fighter planes for war. That is public use.

‘Splain to me how, exactly, a horse race can be “for public use”? How does a Government “use” a horse race?

It says “for public use”…..without a public use, the plain English reading a pretty clear, there can be no taking.

“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. 5th Amendment. There is nothing that differentiates between real, personal, and intellectual property.

Governments can and do own intellectual property.

I would point out that the 5th Amendment protects against the government. If we limit the 5th amendment to only protecting physical property, then anything else is fair game for government expropriation. I do not want the government taking my personal or intellectual property without just compensation.

Eminent domain is not in the constitution. It is simply assumed that the government has the right to use eminent domain. Just saying.