Planners are split on eminent domain—one group believes it’s a critical component of planning since it allows them to implement plans more quickly. Others believe eminent domain does more to destroy urbanism than build it up. I’ve weighed in on it numerous times, including this commentary published by Planetizen.
Planners are split on eminent domain-one group believes it's a critical component of planning since it allows them to implement plans more quickly. Others believe eminent domain does more to destroy urbanism than build it up. I've weighed in on it numerous times, including this commentary published by Planetizen.
One of the biggest hurdles for opponents to eminent domain is the simple and highly relevant question: "What's the alternative?" Many believe the presumption should be in favor of sweeping away old urbanism to accommodate new development. Without eminent domain, how could neighborhoods revitalize or adapt to changing economic circumstances?
I was prompted to revisit this question while viewing the most recent video installment of the Drew Carey Project on reason.tv. This is the second segment on eminent domain by Drew, and this one has a pretty important twist: It highlights the redevelopment efforts of Anaheim, California. Anaheim, under the leadership of Mayor Curt Pringle, has adopted a resolution prohibiting the use of Eminent Domain for redevelopment purposes.
Guess what? Redevelopment is humming along just nicely in Anaheim without eminent domain.
This is quite a contrast to the efforts north of the city in Los Angeles. There, the City of Los Angeles cleared away an entire block, including 30 local businesses, to build a high end luxury hotel and condos. The city claims it's a win-win because the property owners got paid market rates. The business owners and property owners think otherwise.
The video also raises an important policy question: just because someone is paid market rates for property, is it fair? Is it fair to forcibly seize someone's property just because the property owner had a different vision for redevelopment than the city council-organic, street-level development instead of a high-rise luxury hotel in the LA case? The property owners are now deprived of the opportunity to redevelop the property because they city had a different, potentially more lucrative (for the city) vision. Eminent domain proceedings don't compensate for unrealized expectations or plans by the property owner.
As a libertarian, of course, I don't think it is fair. Market prices don't necessarily reflect the value we individually place on property, land, buildings or other goods and services we own, especially if we don't want to sell them. The so-called market price used in legal cases reflects the value others place on those things. In the case of eminent domain, even though a property owner is compensated, the transaction is coerced so the entire concept of a market price is problematic from the get-go. (Market prices presume that transactions are voluntary.)
Notably, the developer for the LA property in the video admits the project would not have gone forward without the implicit subsidy of eminent domain. This raises yet another question: if the market would not have supported the project, what public purpose was it serving?
Watch: The Dark Side of Eminent Domain
In cities like Boston, the government’s right to take private property displaced residents and destroyed vulnerable neighborhoods and communities.
Publicly-Funded Stadiums Bad Deal for Cities
Sports teams often coerce cities into contributing public funds toward the building of new stadiums. Numerous reports indicate that it's a bad deal for cities with little to no positive economic impact, writes Neal DeMause.
New Twist on Eminent Domain
Boston uses the threat of eminent domain to force a developer to build on a site that's become an eyesore.
Planetizen Federal Action Tracker
A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.
Chicago breaks ground on $3 billion megadevelopment
The new neighborhood, titled Foundry Park, will one day host 3,700 residences.
This MA town is drowning in its own sewage — and residents like it that way
Susan Murcott, a waste water expert, said if Carlisle didn't address their leaking sewage, the problem could turn “deadly.”
Iowa taxpayers are paying thousands to clean manure out of their water
While the Clean Water Act makes states responsible for regulating factory farms that discharge pollutants, Iowa has turned a blind eye to the polluting farms.
Amtrak cuts ribbon on Seattle Airo maintenance facility
The $250 million, nearly 100,000-square-foot building can house an entire Cascades Airo trainset.
To power data centers, Google seeks autonomous control of thousands of homes’ electricity
The tech company has signed a deal to indirectly pay Mid-Atlantic residents to reduce their power demand when the grid is strained.
FREE Course: Walkable City 1: Why Walkability?
After describing his path towards focusing on walkability as the essence of good planning, Jeff Speck marches through his five principal reasons for making more walkable places.
Reinventing Malls: Planning Alchemy—Turning Gray Fields Into Gold
The course focuses on the opportunities and imperatives that shape reinvention of mall sites.
City of Rosemead
Rutgers University, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
One Hundred Miles
The Architects Foundation
University of Cincinnati Online
Montrose County
The Pocatello Development Authority
The Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Pocatello
