Eminent Domain Use And Abuse

This book is a comprehensive analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London. It addresses the controversial and important question of when eminent domain may constitutionally be used to take property for projects that are not publicly owned and operated facilities, such as schools and town halls. The volume captures and conveys the context within which this debate is taking place as well as offers guidance concerning the Kelo decision itself and how it may be used.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that government shall not take private property except for "public use" and with "just compensation." Officials from national organizations and state and local governments cited various purposes for which eminent domain can be or has been used, including the building or expansion of transportation-related projects; the elimination and prevention of conditions that are detrimental to the physical, social, and economic well-being of an area; remediation of environmental contamination; and economic development. This book provides information on the purposes for and extent to which eminent domain can be and has been used; the process states and select localities across the country use to acquire land, including by eminent domain; how the use of eminent domain has affected individuals and communities in select localities; and the changes state legislatures made to laws governing the use of eminent domain from June 2005 through July 2006.

An exploration of eminent domain looks at the concept of "public use," the injustice and unfairness inherent in the definition when it is based on tax revenue, and the people who are fighting back to preserve their property rights.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London, Connecticut, could condemn fifteen residential properties in order to transfer them to a new private owner. Although the Fifth Amendment only permits the taking of private property for “public use,” the Court ruled that the transfer of condemned land to private parties for “economic development” is permitted by the Constitution—even if the government cannot prove that the expected development will ever actually happen. The Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London empowered the grasping hand of the state at the expense of the invisible hand of the market. In this detailed study of one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in modern times, Ilya Somin argues that Kelo was a grave error. Economic development and “blight” condemnations are unconstitutional under both originalist and most “living constitution” theories of legal interpretation. They also victimize the poor and the politically weak for the benefit of powerful interest groups and often destroy more economic value than they create. Kelo itself exemplifies these patterns. The residents targeted for condemnation lacked the influence needed to combat the formidable government and corporate interests arrayed against them. Moreover, the city’s poorly conceived development plan ultimately failed: the condemned land lies empty to this day, occupied only by feral cats. The Supreme Court’s unpopular ruling triggered an unprecedented political reaction, with forty-five states passing new laws intended to limit the use of eminent domain. But many of the new laws impose few or no genuine constraints on takings. The Kelo backlash led to significant progress, but not nearly as much as it may have seemed. Despite its outcome, the closely divided 5-4 ruling shattered what many believed to be a consensus that virtually any condemnation qualifies as a public use under the Fifth Amendment. It also showed that there is widespread public opposition to eminent domain abuse. With controversy over takings sure to continue, The Grasping Hand offers the first book-length analysis of Kelo by a legal scholar, alongside a broader history of the dispute over public use and eminent domain and an evaluation of options for reform.

A collection of essays that examines the use and abuse of eminent domain across the world.

In an effort to understand the reasons for and consequences of the political backlash to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London, this book brings together a diverse group of scholars and practitioners who explore the uses and abuses of eminent domain and regulatory takings.

Evicted! is a practical and critical look at the vulnerability of Americans' property rights to eminent domain abuse since the Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision. The 2005 Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London, which upheld the taking of an individual's home by local government for the sake of private development, unleashed a firestorm of controversy. The backlash against eminent domain cuts across partisan, ideological, and racial lines, with 4 out of 5 Americans opposing Kelo. Critics of Kelo claim that it represents a radical departure in the law, putting every homeowner in jeopardy of dispossession by government at the service of corporate interests. But are property rights and eminent domain truly in mortal conflict? Written for general readers, property owners, and local government officials seeking to understand the implications of Kelo for eminent domain and property law, Evicted! cuts through all the hype and hysteria surrounding Kelo and argues that the alleged wave of eminent domain abuse is mostly a myth. Evicted! describes what property rights are, why the law protects them, and how eminent domain really works. Schultz shows that Kelo did not make new law but only broadened Supreme Court precedents, and he refutes claims that Kelo has opened the way to widespread eminent domain abuse. Nevertheless, the author identifies certain legislative changes that are needed at the local, state, and national levels to better protect individual property owners when corporate thugs and corrupt government officials occasionally gang up against them.