It has only recently become clear in the U.S. that federal law permits the use of eminent domain to help private parties do economic development. Have a read through the Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), which is a totally approachable decision ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US... ).
Civil libertarians were not thrilled by Kelo and some have pushed for state or local laws that prohibit the use of eminent domain for private parties to engage in economic development. So, taking someone's land to build a shopping center may not be legal in some cities or states.
See also the Lost Liberty Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel), a proposed hotel to be built on David Souter's land as a better source of economic development for the community than his house.
For a good time, drive to New London some time and check out the land that was under dispute in Kelo. It's still a sad, empty, vacant lot — although the Supreme Court allowed a developer to seize the land, they ended up deciding not to develop.
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted, considering that Kelo v. City of New London[1] provides precedent that eminent domain can be use to forcibly transfer property for the purposes of economic development.
Eminent Domain is nearly never used in the USA for private development, since Kelo v. City of New London. The City won in court, but lost massively in the court of public opinion. Many states passed laws restricting or prohibiting that type of eminent domain use following that case.
It would be tricky in more densely populated areas, thanks to the ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London. "The local government thinks they'll get more economic activity from someone else" is a valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason. It works in more rural places because, frankly, it's generally not worth the trouble of litigation there.
Can you point to some precedent where building a public road to a public park across unimproved land was not a valid use of the takings clause?
The precedent is that eminent domain is remarkably unrestricted as to what constitutes 'public use' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London). Condemning occupied and habitable homes to build a shopping center is an allowed use per precedent at the federal level (additional restrictions apply in many states). Eminent domain for building a road is basically a given if that is the method that is chosen.
Eminent domain? Sounds like the perfect use to force demolition and redevelopment. Perhaps it’s just a matter of putting the resources together to legally fight the mall owner until you exceed their economic pain tolerance for litigation.
A land value tax is ideal, but that will take substantial time to work towards. You can get this done today.
(I was not a fan of this SCOTUS outcome for obvious property rights reasons, but it seems ideal for use against the capital investment opportunists described in this piece)
Kelo v. New London is an (in)famous Supreme Court case holding that "public use" for eminent domain can include just handing the property over to private interests, on the theory that doing so could produce economic development.
The actual New London development fell through anyway and the area is just vacant. A large Pfizer presence nearby was a major reason behind the plan in the first place; in the wake of mergers and with the tax breaks that lured them there in the first place expiring, Pfizer pulled up stakes.
"Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
...
"The final cost to the city and state for the purchase and bulldozing of the formerly privately held property was $78 million. The promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized. As of 2021, the area remains an empty lot."
> Shouldn't eminent domain be illegal when the land is going to a private company and not public use? The constitution is kind of clear on that, not sure how they get around it
There was a controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decision on this in 2005, Kelo v. New London.
As much as I hate _Kelo vs. City of New London_, I can see the temptation in this case to invoke eminent domain and hand over those vacant properties to another private owner who will put them to good use.
Source on that? AFAIK eminent domain for private development is rare, the vast, vast majority of the time developers just offer enough money to convince people to sell.
Eminent Domain displaces people in the US all the time. When a developer wants a pretty lake by the highway to build a condo complex, guess where the trailer park that was next to the lake goes?
Well, in the real word eminent domain literally is routinely used to hand the land to developers to profit from. Famously, shopping malls, but any development can be framed as an economic benefit.
Is it only private interests that are allowed to benefit from the eminent-domain flip or should we let the public in on it too?
I’m all for eminent domain when it comes to providing infrastructure, but I feel icky about it being used just to hopefully profit. Reminds me too much of Kelo v. New London
This is exactly what eminent domain is for. The state needs to build a railway, they give fair market for the property, and then take the property. This isn't a new problem and was solved 150 years ago. The Kelo case (wrongly I believe) cleared up some confusion on if the a government can take the land in order to give it to businesses who will use it in a way the government prefers.
Eminent domain is a despotic power; to grant any legitimacy to the taking of property for "public use" is the abhorrent tip of a wedge, even with supposedly "just compensation." This should have become clear to all after the 2005 Kelo decision. [1]
Recommended reading: Property Rights and Eminent Domain by Ellen Frankel Paul [2]
"[The Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
If a developer can convince the local government that their shopping center (or whatever) will be for the common good, then the government exercises the eminent domain.
I've actually always been uncertain of why eminent domain works/exists seemingly sometimes in the US for private companies wanting to build developments. Or at least, that's how people seem to think of it. I've heard several people "forced to sell their home through eminent domain" because someone wanted to build a shopping center.
Is that true, or is that a misunderstanding of how it works?
Civil libertarians were not thrilled by Kelo and some have pushed for state or local laws that prohibit the use of eminent domain for private parties to engage in economic development. So, taking someone's land to build a shopping center may not be legal in some cities or states.
See also the Lost Liberty Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel), a proposed hotel to be built on David Souter's land as a better source of economic development for the community than his house.
For a good time, drive to New London some time and check out the land that was under dispute in Kelo. It's still a sad, empty, vacant lot — although the Supreme Court allowed a developer to seize the land, they ended up deciding not to develop.
reply