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 organisations 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.
Eminent domain entered the awareness of many Americans with the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London. Across the political spectrum, people were outraged when the Court majority said that a local government may transfer property from one private party to another under the ''public use'' clause of the Constitution, for the sake of ''economic development. Carla T. Main - who in the past, as a lawyer, has represented the condemning authorities in eminent domain cases - examines how property rights in America have come to be so weak, tracing the history of eminent domain from the Revolutionary War to the Kelo case. But the heart of Bulldozed is a story of how eminent domain has affected an American family and the small-town community where they have lived and worked for decades. In the 1940s, Pappy and Isabel Gore established a shrimp processing plant in Freeport, Texas. Three generations of Gores built Western Seafood into a thriving business that stood up to fierce competition and market flux. But Freeport was struggling, and city officials decided that a private yacht marina on the Old Brazos River might save it. They would use eminent domain to take the Gores' waterfront property and hand it over to the developer, an heir of a legendary Texas oil family, in a risky sweetheart deal. For three years, the Gores resisted the taking with every ounce of strength they had. Around them, the fabric of the community unraveled as friends and neighbors took sides. Bulldozed vividly recounts the Gores' fight with city hall, and at the same time ponders larger questions of what property rights mean today and who among us is entitled to hold on to the American Dream.
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.
